^TTTTTT^ 


THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 


nunquam  las  sal  veil  alio  sylva 
A.D.1B84. 


(Presented  by  HON.  D.  ^ETHUNE  DUFFIELD, 

From  Library  of  Rev.  Geo  Duffield,  D.D. 


In  tall  iiunquam  las  sal  venalio  sylva 
A.D.1B84‘. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES.- 


%Jl 


Li 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/lecturesontrutho00cock_0 


LECTURES 


^ ON  THE  ^ ^ . i j 

: I 

TieuTHC  o:f  thce 

CHRISTIAN  RELIGION 


DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  STUDENTS  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  MICHIGAN  ON 
SUNDAY  AFTERNOONS 


BY 

REV.  B.  F.  COCKER,  D.  D., 

Professor  of  Mental  and  Moral  Philosophy. 


PUBLISHED  BY  RE  I«#1IBRARY  OF  THE 

FEB  4 1933 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

DETROIT : 


J.  M.  ARNOLD  & CO.,  PUBLISHERS. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  Year  1S73,  by 
B.  F.  COCKER, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


Printed  and  Bound  at  the  Courier  Office, 
Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 


(LG^I-A 


LECTURE  I. 


“ If  any  man  vjill  do  his  he  shall  knoxv  of  the  doctrine  -whether 
it  he  of  God.”— John  vii.  17. 

There  are  a ^reat  mail}"  opinions  entertained  by  us  all 
in  regard  to  iminan  duty,  in  regard  to  God  and  liis  relation 
to  the  world,  in  regard  to  a future  life  and  our  destination 
thereto,  which  rest  almost  exclusively  on  the  teachings  of 
the  Hebrew  and  Chiastian  Scriptures. 

Were  we  asked  to  trace  our  opinion  to  its  source,  and 
state  the  fundamental  reason  for  our  belief,  most  of  us 
would  appeal  to  some  text  of  scripture ; we  would  fall  back 
upon  some  utterance  of  Moses  or  Christ.  But  why  do  we 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  scripture?  Wiiy  do  we  quote  the 
words  of  Moses  or  of  Christ  as  though  they  were  more  reli- 
able than  the  words  of  other  men  ? Is  it  not  because  we 
regard  the  Bible  as,  somehow,  a book  sul  generis — a book 
standing  b}-  itself — and  liaving  a Dieine  element  in  it,  which 
sets  it  apart  from  other  books,  and  enables  it  to  speak  to  us 
with  more  authority  than  any  other  book  on  earth  ? 

Most  men  now  believe  and  have  believed  in  all  ages,  that 
God  does  in  some  way  reveal  himself  to  man.  In  the  econ- 
omy of  nature,  in  the  evolution  of  human  history,  in  the 

religious  consciousness  of  oiir  race,  by  prophets  and  seers 
B 


827489 


2 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


ill  some  way,  God  makes  known  his  will  to  men.  Every 
nation  has  had  its  inspired  men  and  its  sacred  books,  which 
have  been  held  in  reverence,  and  appealed  to  as  authorized 
expositions  of  the  Divine  will.  The  Vedas  and  the  Laws 
of  Menu  among  the  Hindoos;  the  writings  of  Confucius 
among  the  Chinese;  the  Zend-Avesta  among  the  Persians; 
Homer  with  the  early  Greeks;  the  Koran  with  the  Moham- 
medans, have  all  been  revered  and  quoted  as,  in  some  sense, 
uevelations  from  God.  And,  now,  without  being  under  the 
necessity  of  affirming  that  these  claims  were  utterly  ground- 
dess,  and  that  these  books  contained  no  elements  of  eternal 
Truth,  the  Christian  nations  claim  that  in  the  scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  Kew  Testament,  we  have  the  fullest,  the  com- 
pletest,  and  the  best  Revelation  of  the  character  of  God  and 
the  duties  and  destiny  of  man.  Christians  generally  believe 
in  the  divine  legation  of  Moses,  and  the  divine  mission  of 
Christ.  Moses  claimed  that  he  was  sent  b}^  God  to  legislate 
for  the  Hebrew  race,  and  that  the  laws  he  gave  to  them  were 
directly  from  God.  A.nd  Christ  claimed  that  he  came  down 
from  heaven  to  make  a fuller  and  more  complete  communi- 
cation of  the  mind  of  God,  and  a larger  revelation  of  eter- 
nal Truth.  “ To  this  end  was  I born,  and  for  this  purpose 
came  I into  the  world,  that  I might  bear  testimony  unto  the 
Truth.”  They  both  professed  to  have  a superhuman  knowl- 
edge— to  foretell  future  events  which  lay  beyond  the  field  of 
all  human  prevision.  They  both  claimed  to  be  endowed 
Avith  superhuman  powers — to  do  things  which  human  skill 
and  human  science  confess  themselves  incompetent  to  do. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


3 


And  they  both  established  a new  order  of  society,  which  has 
exerted  a mighty  influence  on  the  fortunes  of  our  race,  and 
which  remains  unto  this  daj^ 

And,  now,  it  is  our  privilege  and  our  duty  to  examine 
into  the  nature  of  these  professions,  and  sit  in  judgment 
upon  these  claims.  We  are  not  to  be  deterred  from  the  most 
searching  scrutiny  by  any  fear  that  these  claims  are  too 
sacred  to  be  questioned  hy  human  reason,  or  to  be  tested  by 
human  logic.  They  both  profess  to  have  a Divine  call;  to 
come  to  us  as  messengers  from  heaven  ; and  tliey  offer  to  us 
certain  credentials.  Wc  liavc  a right  to  examine  these  cre- 
dentials, and  to  judge  of  their  validity.  The  Bihle  plants 
itself  upon  a certain  order  of  historical  facts;  we  may  ex- 
amine these  facts;  we  may  subject  them  to  a rigid  historic 
criticism,  and  we  may  ask.  Do  they  warrant  tlie  claims  which 
to-day  are  set  up  on  its  behalf? 

This  is  the  discussion  to  which  I shall  invite  your  atten- 
tion in  this  brief  course  of  lectures.  There  are  several 
methods  of  inquiry  open  to  us.  Assuming  that  God  has 
made  a revelation  to  us  in  the  laws  and  ideas  of  our  reason, 
we  might  ask  if  the  professed  revelation  contained  in  the 
Bible  agrees  with  this  revelation  in  the  constitution  of  our 
minds.  Or,  assuming  that  God  has  revealed  himself  in  the 
course  and  constitution  of  nature,  we  may  ask,  Do  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  harmonize  with  the  facts  of  science?  Oj*, 
inasmuch  as  the  Christian  Revelation  {i.  e.,  the  whole  Bible) 
is  based  upon  a continuous  tissue  of  liistoric  facts,  spread 
over  4,000  years;  a tissue  which  in  numberless  instances  is 


4 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


interwoven  with  the  history  of  the  Five  Great  Monarchies 
of  the  Ancient  Worltl,  and  thus  offers  so  many  opportunities 
to  he  tested  and  detected,  we  may  ask,  Are  the  events  re- 
corded in  the  Bible  historically  accurate?  Are  the  records 
confirmed  by  other  histories,  monuments,  ruins,  gems,  med- 
als, and  coins?  In  short,  is  the  Bible  a histoiy  of  real  facts, 
or  a collection  of  legends  and  myths,  after  the  manner  of 
the  Iliad  or  the  Yedic  Hymns?  This  last  is  the  course  we 
propose  to  pursue,  and  if  we  can  establish  the  facts,  there 
will  be  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  the  doctrine  grounded 
on  them  must  be  accepted. 

As  a prelude  and  preparation  for  this  study,  I shall  oc- 
cupy the  rest  of  the  hour  with  some  observations  on  the 
spirit  in  which  such  inquirj^  should  be  conducted ; and  I re- 
mark, first,  that  sincerity  of  mind,  honest}^  of  purpose,  a 
desire  to  know,  and  a willingness  to  obey  the  truth,  are  the 
first  requisites  to  our  success. 

The  investigation  of  truth  is,  of  course,  the  proper  busi- 
ness of  the  understanding  (logical  faculty) ; to  observe  facts, 
to  scrutinize  these  facts  as  to  their  relative  value  and  import; 
to  examine  the  evidence  on  which  facts  that  have  not  come 
under  our  personal  observation  and  experience,  are  based 
and  attested ; to  classify  and  generalise  these  facts ; and  then 
to  infer  the  general  principle  or  law  which  they  reveal,  is 
the  office  of  the  reasoning  or  logical  powers.  This  is  the 
inductive  method  of  inquiry,  sometimes  called  the  “Bacon- 
ian Method,”  because  supposed  to  have  been  first  inaugurated 
by  Bacon. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


5 


And,  so  far  as  Christianity  is  an  historical  religion,  that 
is,  so  far  as  it  is  founded  upon  the  facts  which  are  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  the  facts  of  the  Eedeeiner^s  Life, 
Death,  and  Resurrection ; the  facts  of  tlie  early  planting  and 
training  of  the  Christian  church;  and  the  facts  which  Chris- 
tianity presents  to-day  in  the  world  around  us,  we  claim  that 
Christian  Theology  is  an  inductive  science,  and  we  are  to 
determine  its  nature  as  an  economy,  and  its  validity  as  a di- 
vine revelation,  fj'om  an  induction  of  all  the  facts.  We  are 
not  unmindful  that  Christianity  is  a Life,  as  well  as  a Dog- 
ma. It  is  a vital  experience  for  the  heart,  which  is  to  be 
consciouslj^  felt;  as  well  as  a system  of  principles  grounded 
upon  facts,  which  is  to  be  thought  out  intellectually.  We 
shall  advert  to  this  peculiarity  more  fully  by  and  by.  At 
present  we  allude  to  it  simpl}^  to  protest  against  the  senti- 
ment lirst  propounded  by  Schleierinacher,  and  now  very 
positively  affirmed  in  some  quarters,  that  religion  is  exclu- 
sively an  affair  of  the  heart,  and  in  no  sense  a question  for 
the  logical  understanding. 

In  my  judgment,  this  is  an  unsafe  position  to  assume, 
and  its  advocates  are  treading  on  treacherous  ground.  A 
system  of  Theology  which  assumes  and  openly  asserts  a 
perpetual  conflict  between  faith  and  reason,  an  everlasting 
antagonism  between  religion  and  science,  cannot  maintain 
itself  in  the  world.  Christianity  cannot  sustain  itself  in  a 
ceaseless  warfare  between  thought  and  feeling,  between  the 
head  and  the  heart. 

The  intellect  of  man  demands  and  must  have  its  satis- 


6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


faction,  as  well  as  the  heart.  However  much  a man  may 
desire  it,  lie  cannot  surrender  his  honest  convictions,  silence 
all  the  questions  of  his  reason,  and  submit  himself  to  the 
ex-cathedra  affirmations  of  a self-constituted  ecclesiastical 
authority,  even  to  satisfy  the  religious  wants  of  his  heart. 
A man  must  have  settled  convictions,  definite  principles, 
which  send  their  tap-roots  down  to  the  very  foundations  of 
his  intellectual  being,  or  he  can  develop  no  strength  of  moral 
and  religious  character.  A state  of  inward  contradiction,  of 
perpetual  antagonism  between  thought  and  feeling,  reason 
and  faith,  is  death  to  all  real  earnestness.  And  if  it  is  de- 
manded of  men  as  a condition  sine  qua  non  of  their  becom- 
ing Christians,  that  they  shall  surrender  the  high  prerogative 
of  reason,  and  cease  to  think;  if  it  is  claimed  that  the  teach- 
ings of  the  church  are  not,  and  must  not  be  subjected  to  the 
scrutiny  of  the  critical  and  logical  faculty,  but  must  be 
blindly  believed,  the  consequence  will  be  that  men  will 
stand  up  in  their  God-given  manhood,  and  assert  their  intel- 
lectual freedom  in  spite  of  all  the  anathemas  of  a self-styled 
orthodoxy,  and  the  threatened  fires  of  Tophet.  Men  will 
believe  that  God  gave  them  their  reason,  not  to  befool  or 
mislead  them,  but  to  guide  them.  They  will  believe  that 
they  are  responsible  to  no  man  on  earth  for  its  exercise,  and 
if  they  conscientiously  use  the  rational  powers  which  God 
has  given  them,  they  will  at  the  last  da}^  meet  his  approval, 
better,  at  least,  than  if  they  had  blindly  followed  any  man ; 
and  so  far  they  are  right.  We  cannot  crush  out  the  honest 
convictions  of  men  by  an  arbitrary  assertion  of  dogmatic 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


7 


^lutllOl•it3^  They  will  demaud,  it  is  their  duty  to  demand, 
on  what  ground  our  pretended  authority  is  based.  We  may 
answer,  on  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  They  reply,  yes,  on 
your  interpretation  of  Scripture,  but  we  are  just  as  able  to 
interpret  Scripture  for  ourselves  as  you  are,  and  we  do  not 
choose  to  accept  your  interpretation. 

The^"  may  even  go  so  far  as  to  ask,  What  evidence  have 
we  that  the  Bible  itself  is  in  religious  matters  an  infallible 
authority?  And  the}^  have  a right  to  ask  that  question.  It 
is  the  most  natural  and  proper  question  that  can  arise  in  an 
inquiring  mind,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  answer  them,  not  with 
reproaches  and  threats,  but  with  reasons  and  arguments.  It 
is  their  duty  to  ask  a reason  for  the  hope  that  is  in  the 
Christian  ; it  is  every  Christian’s  dut}^  to  be  i‘eady  to  give  an 
answer  to  any  one  who  asks  a reason,  and,  mark  3^011,  our 
answer  must  be  ‘‘a  reason  for  our  hope,”  not  a mere  rela- 
tion of  our  religious  experience,  or  a confession  of  our  faith; 
it  must  be  a re  ison,  grounded  on  evidence,  that  is,  a proof 
based  upon  tlie  induction  of  facts. 

Tlie  most  unfortunate  and  injudicious  defenders  of 
Christian it3"  are  those  who  assert  the  opposition  of  Reason 
and  Faith,  and  demand  a blind  and  unquestioning  belief  in 
order  to  satisf>'  the  wants  of  the  heart.  If  the  service  of 
God  is  not  a reasonable  service,  the  race  can  never  be 
brought  to  the  obedience  of  faith.  Our  belief  of  (Christian 
principles  must  at  last  repose  on  well  attested  facts.  Our 
theolog3^  must  be  an  inductive  science. 

But  in  order  to  our  success  in  the  use  of  the  inductive 


8 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


method,  a rectitude  of  purpose,  an  honesty  of  mind,  an  ar- 
dent devotion  to  truth,  and  a determination  to  embrace  the 
truth,  are  indispensable  requisites.  The  passion  of  men,  the 
indifierence  and  consequeni  inattention  of  men,  may  vitiate 
even  this  method  of  inquiry.  Attachment  to  favorite  theo- 
ries, educational  prepossessions,  regard  for  mere  personal 
considerations,  denominational  or  sectarian  prejudices,  may 
lead  men  to  overlook  a large  class  of  facts,  and  an  order  of 
principles  which  bear  directly  upon  the  issue.  Under  the 
influence  of  these  feelings,  men  are  led  to  attach  an  undue 
importance  to  one  class  of  facts  in  nature  and  history,  or 
to  one  form  of  statement  in  Sci'ipture,  and  disregard  all 
the  rest,  or  rob  them  of  their  significance  and  value. 

In  fact,  in  all  inquiries,  whether  Ethical,  Scientific,  His- 
torical, or  Keligious,  the  moi*al  condition  of  the  heart  has  a 
powerful  influence  upon  the  operations  of  the  intellect. 
Passion  can  easil}^  becloud  the  understanding,  and  prejudice 
readily  warp  the  judgment,  in  all  inquiries.  And  I cannot 
doubt  that  manj^  of  the  errors  into  which  men  fall  on  relig- 
ious questions,  are  the  result  of  a want  of  sincere  regard  for 
the  whole  Truth,  and  a fixed  determination  to  embrace  it 
wherever  it  is  found.  Disloyalty  to  Truth  is  at  bottom  dis- 
loyalty to  God. 

It  is  on  this  ground  we  assert  that  man  is  responsible  to 
God  for  his  belief.  We  grant  that  no  man  has  the  power  to 
believe  a proposition  against  all  evidence,  or  irrespective  of 
all  proof.  But  eveiy  man  has  the  power  to  give  attention 
to  the  evidence,  or  to  disregard  the  evidence.  Under  the  in- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


9 


fluence  of  n sincere  pu»*pose  to  know  the  Truth,  a man  can 
open  liis  eyes  and  carefully  examine  the  proof;  or  under  the 
influence  of  evil  passions  and  prejudices,  he  can  close  his 
eyes,  and  disregard  the  most  conclusive  proof.  And  inas- 
much a«  a man’s  belief  in  a great  measure  governs  his  ac- 
tions, and  the  expressed  opinions  of  representative  men 
control  society,  therefore,  we  must  regard  them  as  account- 
able to  God.  Man  must  be  accountable  for  the  use  of  his 
reason,  as  much  as  for  the  use  of  his  tongue,  and  the  use  of 
his  hands. 

We  may  admit  that  many  of  men’s  actions  are  almost 
purely  automatic.  They  perforin  a great  many  of  what  are. 
conventionally  styled  right  acts,  under  the  influence  of  earh' 
training,  habits  of  education,  and  considerations  of  personal 
interest.  Yet,  in  most  human  minds,  there  are  fundamental 
principles  which  underlie  moral  conduct.  Pianciples  of 
righteousness,  of  equity,  of  charity,  and  of  merc}^  which 
involve  duties  and  obligations.  Principles  which  make  de- 
mands upon  men.  Principles  which  claim  to  regulate  the 
conduct  of  men.  Principles  which  conflict  with  the  selflsh- 
ness  of  men.  And  these  are  tardil}"  recognized,  and  iiuAvill- 
ingly  obeyed. 

And  if  these  teachings  of  Conscience,  of  the  Word  of 
God,  and  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  lequire  self-denial,  demand 
sacrilices,  impose  restraint,  imply  censure,  impute  blame, 
they  awaken  the  hostility  of  the  unrenewed  and  impure 
mind.  The  man  who  indulges  in  unholv  passions  and  sinful 
pleasures,  places  himself  in  an  attitude  of  resistance,  and  is 


ro 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


thus  (lisqualilied  for  a calm  and  rational  consideration  of  the 
claims  of  ri<j:liteoiisness,  and  the  claims  of  Christianity. 
This  is  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  reception  of  Christianity  by 
the  masses  of  sinful  men.  Christianity  imposes  restraint, 
it  requires  self-denial,  it  prohibits  sinful  pleasures,  it  an- 
nounces law,  it  imposes  obligations,  it  imputes  guilt,  it  in- 
volves retribution  ; therefore  men  reject  it.  ‘‘They  love 
darkness  rather  than  light,”  and  because  they  do  so,  they 
are  unwilling  to  give  to  religion  that  serious  consideration 
which  its  importance  demands,  and  the  solemnity  of  the  in- 
terests involved  would  justify.  Tliese  men  profess  to  have 
doubts,  but  the}^  are  not  “ honest  doubts.”  Their  sceptical 
questionings  are  not  the  strivings  of  the  human  spirit  to- 
wards the  light,  but  a persistent  struggle  of  the  soul  to  hide 
itself  in  darkness,  and,  if  possible,  escape  from  God.  Their 
unbelief  has  not  an  intellectual  but  a moral  cause.  It  is  not 
because  the  evidence  is  defective',  it  is  because  thejMove  sin, 
and  ai*e  resolved,  at  all  hazards,  to  live  in  sin. 

Let  any  one  read  the  Confessions”  of  Rosseau,  and 
he  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  his  sket)ticisrn  has  not  an  in- 
tellectual, but  a moral  cause.  He  was  a skeptic  because  he 
was  an  abandoned  sensualist,  guilty  of  the  basest  crimes, 
which  he  does  not  hesitate  most  unblushingly  to  avow.  By- 
ron’s “Don  Juan”  reveals  the  source  of  Byron’s  skepticism, 
in  his  licentious  manners  and  polluted  heart.  Whoever  has 
read  Mirabeau's  life,  even  in  that  half-apologetic  sketch 
which  is  given  by  Thomas  Carlyle,  will  not  be  at  a loss  to 
account  for  his  unbelief.  His  clandestine  amours  with  other 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


1 1 

men’s  wives,  which  Carlyle  calls  “ little  peccadillos,”  suffi- 
ciently indicate  the  absence  of  moral  purity  both  in  the 
actor  and  the  biographer.  And  so  of  Diderot,  the  French 
atheist,  of  whom  Carljde  is  compelled  to  say,  “Diderot  is 
not  what  we  call  indelicate  and  indecent,  he  is  utterly  un- 
clean, scandalous,  shameless,  sansculottic,  samoicdic,  devil- 
ish. To  declare  with  lyric  fury  that  this  is  wi’ong,  or  with 
historic  calmness  that  a pig  of  sensuality  would  go  distracted 
did  you  accuse  him  of  it,  may  be  considered  superfluous.” 
Indeed  the  remark  of  Dr.  Johnson,  in  relation  to  the  infi- 
delity of  the  Earl  of  Rochester,  is  true  of  a large  majority 
of  this  class  of  skeptics:  “Not  finding  it  convenient  to  sub- 
mit to  the  authority  of  moral  laws  he  was  unwilling  to  obey, 
he  shelteied  himself  behind  infidelity.”  Fairness  and  can- 
dor, howevei*,  compel  the  admission  that  these  words  of  Dr. 
Johnson  are  not  to  be  applied  to  a large  portion  of  the  edu- 
cated men  of  America  who  are  perplexed  with  doubts  on 
the  subject  of  religion.  There  is  less  of  positive  skepticism 
in  the  literary  and  scientific  mind  of  this  country  than  of 
Europe ; far  less  of  the  bitterness  and  blasphemy  of  infidel- 
ity in  the  writings  of  American  scholars  than  of  English 
authors.  We  import  our  worst  books  against  Christianity 
from  abroad.  Feuerbaugh,  Strauss,  Renan,  Comte,  Vogt, 
Holyoake,  Buckle,  SpenceJ*,  Maudsley,  are  not,  thank  God, 
Americans.  And  even  much  of  their  skepticism  is  the  re- 
volt of  the  human  mind  against  the  narrowness  and  intoler- 
ance, bigotry  and  despotism,  of  the  ecclesiastical  systems  of 
the  old  world.  There  is  more  skepticism  and  profanity  in 


12 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


the  University  of  Cambridge,  England,  where  all  the  stu- 
dents are  required  to  subscribe  to  the  Tiiirty-nine  Articles, 
than  in  the  University  of  Miciiigan,  where  no  religious  tests 
are  required.  The  freedom  of  thought,  the  liberal  senti- 
ment, the  general  diftusion  of  education,  in  America,  have 
been  favorable  to  the  development  of  a purer  form  of  Chris- 
tianity in  this  land,  and.  above  all,  the  absence  of  a State 
Church,  thrusting  its  dogmas  clown  the  people’s  thi'oats  by 
the  iron  hand  of  law,  and  hurling  anathemas  upon  the  heads 
of  those  who  dare  assei't  their  intellectual  freedom,  has  dis- 
armed opposition,  and  removed  the  most  violent  and  pro- 
voking causes  of  skepticism.  If  the  educated  men  of 
America  have  doubts — and  who  has  not?— they  are,  in  the 
main,  ‘‘  honest  doubts.”  They  are  doubts  which  stimulate 
inquirv,  and  in  most  cases  result  in  rational  belief.  The 
American  mind  has  an  eminently  practical  character;  there 
is  in  it  a tone  of  earnestness  and  sincerity,  which  is  impa- 
tient of  bare  negations,  and  demands  actions.  The  remark 
of  Bayne  in  regard  to  Chalmers,  is  equally  applicable  to 
many  young  men  of  noble,  earnest  minds  in  this  country 
who  may,  for  a season,  be  involved  in  doubt.  When  a 
young  man,  he  became  skeptical  through  the  reading  of 
Baron  Von  Holbach’s  “System  of  I^s'ature.”  “But,”  says 
Bayne,  “it  was  impossible  for  young  Chalmers  to  remain  a 
skeptic.  He  would  have  forced  his  way  to  conscientious 
and  hearty  action,  or  sunk  into  madness,  or  the  grave. 
Doubt  to  him  was  agony.  He  felt  it  to  be  the  negation  of 
all  work — the  death  of  action  even  in  its  birth;  and  he 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


13 


strii.o^o’lecl  towards  truth  as  a giant  might  straggle  through 
the  flames  towards  his  dearest  treasure.” 

So  there  are  young  and  earnest  minds  around  us  in  this 
University,  who  amid  the  conflictions  and  controversies  and 
apparent  uncertainties  of  prevailing  religious  opinions,  have 
been  involved  in  doubt.  Tliey  looked  abroad  upon  the  pro- 
fessing church,  and  the^^  have  been  confounded  and  shocked 
by  the  startling  discrepancy^  between  the  pray^ers  and  the 
actions  of  Christians — the  flat  contradiction  between  their 
professions  and  their  lives.  They  have  heard  so  many  give 
utterance  to  their  unspeakable  joy  in  the  knowledge  of  God, 
and  afterwards  liave  seen  them  fall  into  the  rankest  sensual- 
ity%  that  they  are  staggered  and  scandalized,  and  some  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  all  Christians  are  either  self- 
deluded  or  conscious  hy^pocrites.  They  have  lost  confidence 
in  Christian  men.  The  church  has  too  often  placed  itself 
on  the  side  of  public  injustice  and  wrong.  When  slavery 
was  defended  in  Cliristian  pulpits  by  quotations  from  the 
Bible,  what  wonder  that  Walker,  Garrison,  Gerrit  Smith, 
and  others,  should  be  driven  toward  skepticism.  The  author 
of  “The  Purgatory  of  Suicides”  tells  a mournful  story, 
how  he  was  driven  almost  to  madness  and  to  skepticism  by 
persecution  for  his  political  opinions.  But  he  had  an  honest 
mind.  When  released  from  prison,  he  sought  the  counsel 
of  that  liberal  churchman,  Charles  Kingsley,  whose  advice 
was,  “ Cooper,  pray!”  tie  prayed,  and  found  inward  calm. 

Then,  there  are  other  young  men  who  have  read  sufli- 
cient  in  Comparative  Anatomy  and  Physiology  to  confuse 


14 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


and  perplex  them.  They  have  had  dreams  of  protoplasm 
and  pangenesis,  of  spontaneous  generation  and  transmuta- 
tion of  species,  of  evolution  of  higher  out  of  lower  forms 
of  life,  and  they  have,  at  length,  come  to  suspect  that  pos- 
sibly mind  is  onl}^  a function  of  the  brain.  They  have 
learned  some  of  the  facts  and  inductions  of  Geology,  and 
these  have  unsettled  their  faith  in  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 
The  writings  of  Strauss  and  Paine  and  Colenzo  have  con- 
centrated theii’  attention  on  the  human  element  of  the  Bible 
with  its  apparent  errors  and  discrepancies,  till  they  have 
lost  sight  of  tlie  Divine  element  with  its  unchangeable  veri- 
ties. And  they  are  involved  in  doubts,  whicli  are  to  their 
own  minds  as  distressing  and  agonizing,  as  the  avowal  of 
tlieii’  skepticism  is  distressing  to  their  Christian  acquaint- 
ances. Their  mental  condition  is  well  described  by  Hume  : 
‘‘I  seem  affrighted  and  confounded  with  the  solitude  in 
which  I am  placed  by  my  philosophy.  When  I look  abroad, 
on  every  side  I see  dispute,  contradiction,  distraction.  When 
1 turn  my  eye  inward,  I find  nothing  but  doubt  and  ignor- 
ance. What  am  I ? Where  am  I ? For  what  cause  do  I 
derive  my  existence?  To  what  condition  shall  I return?  I 
am  confounded  with  these  questions.  I begin  to  fancy  my- 
self in  a most  deplorable  condition,  environed  with  the 
deepest  darkness  on  every  hand.” 

For  all  such  persons  we  entertain  a sincere  respect;  we 
feel  for  them  the  deepest  sympathy;  and  concerning  them 
we  cherish  the  strongest  hopes.  It  has  been  our  privilege 
to  converse  freely  with  many  such  persons.  We  found  that 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


15 


most  of  tliem  were  honest,  earnest  souls,  to  whom  doubt 
was  agony.  Skepticism  was  for  them  a condition  of  dis- 
quietude and  unrest.  They  longed  for  settled  convictions, 
they  desired  to  plant  their  feet  on  solid  rock,  and  feel  their 
footing  logically  secure.  Their  reason  wanted,  craved  for, 
its  satisfaction  as  well  as  their  heart.  But  they  had  inde- 
pendence of  mind,  and  were  not  to  be  fed  with  chalf,  or 
terrified  into  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  by  appeals  to 
their  fears.  The  treatment  such  young  men  have  received 
at  the  hands  of  some  mistaken  (hiristians  has  been  most  in- 
judiciouSj  and  most  unfortunate.  They  have  often  been 
rudely  repelled,  or  cowardly  shunned.  They  have  been 
roughly  denounced  as  the  wickedest  of  men.  N"o  attempt 
has  been  made  to  remove  their  difficulties  and  satisfy  their 
inquiring  minds.  The  consequence  is,  that  they  have  been 
thrown  into  an  attitude  of  more  decided  antagonism.  This 
treatment  intensified  their  unbelief. 

Now,  for  ourselves,  we  have  more  hope  of  such  young 
men  than  we  have  for  those  semi-brutal  3mung  men  who 
plunge  into  intemperance  and  licentiousness,  and  regaixling 
all  moi-al  and  religious  questions  with  simple  indifference, 
never  think  at  all.  If  he  has  any  sincerity  of  purpose,  there 
is  hope  of  a man  who  will  only  think,  even  if  his  speculations 
should  sometimes  lead  him  astraj^  There  is  so  much  in 
Christianity  which  addresses  itself  to  the  reason  and  judg- 
ment and  conscience  of  an  honest  mind;  it  touches  the 
human  heart  at  so  many  points  in  which  the  most  precious 
interests  and  hopes  of  a noble  nature  are  involved,  that  we 


i6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


feel  assured,  if  men  will  but  pursue  their  inquiries  in  a spirit 
of  fairness  and  candor,  tlie}^  will  at  last  be  tinn  believers  in 
Christianity.  Lord  Littleton,  Dr.  Clialmers,  John  Foster, 
Dr.  Arnold,  Dr.  Nast,  and  manj"  others  we  could  name,  were 
in  their  youth  sceptical;  in  their  manhood  they  were  the 
ablest  defenders  and  the  bri«htest  ornaments  of  the  Faith. 
The  mental  struggle  through  whicli  they  passed  was  the  best 
kind  of  education  for  their  future  service  in  the  cause  of 
Christ. 

Sincerity  of  pui-pose  is  a condition  of  mind  most  favor- 
able to  the  attainment  of  a knowledge  of  the  Truth,  because 
it  begets  patience,  and  disposes  one  to  wait  for  further  light. 

Ah  earnest  mind,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  cannot 
yield  to  utter  and  universal  scepticism,  that  is,  it  cannot 
doubt  everything,  and  say  tliere  is  no  such  thing  as  truth. 
It  was  voluptuous,  frivolous,  jesting  Pilate,  who  asked  con- 
temptuously, “ What  is  Truth  ? ” An  earnest  man  has  an 
abiding  conviction  that  the  knowledge  of  truth  is  the  highest 
good.  Truth,  in  his  estimation,  is  the  light  and  life  of  the 
soul.  Mau  cannot  fulfill  the  purposes  of  his  existence,  can- 
not attain  the  perfection  of  his  moral  nature,  cannot 
accomplish  his  high  destiny,  without  the  knowledge  of  truth. 
Therefore,  he  has  an  undying  faith  in  its  final  attainment, 
however  discouraged  and  baffled  he  may  be  in  its  pursuit. 
There  are  facts  of  science,  which  he  feels  he  cannot  reject; 
there  are  undoubted  principles  of  philosophy,  which  he  can- 
not ignore.  These  seem  to  be  in  conflict  with  certain  accepted 
interpretations  of  Scripture,  and  lie  has  }'et  been  unable  to 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


17 


find  any  satisfactory  and  adequate  method  of  reconciliation; 
therefore  he  is  unhappy.  The  m*in  of  sincere  and  earnest 
purpose  is  not,  however,  in  haste  to  rush  to  positive  conclu- 
sions, and  place  himself  in  an  extreme  on  either  hand.  He 
wisely  concludes  that  there  may  be  facts  and  principles  of 
interpi-etation  with  which  he  i»  yet  unacquainted,  which 
may  shed  an  ordering  light  upon  the  whole  question,  and  he 
does  not  dogmaticall}^  affirm  or  deny.  He  suspends  judg- 
ment, and  patiently  waits  for  additional  light.  This  is  the 
proper  attitude  for  every  candid  mind,  and  he  who  conscien- 
tiously maintains  it,  will  at  last  find  satisfaction.  A fact  of 
Science  is  one  of  God’s  truths  just  as  much  as  a statement  of 
Scripture.  A first  principle  of  reason  is  just  as  much  a 
revelation  from  God  as  a text  of  the  Bible.  God  is  the 
author  of  nature  as  well  as  the  autlior  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  He  cannot  contradict  himself.  All  truth  is  sacred, 
because  it  is  all  from  God,  and  must  at  last  be  found  har- 
monious. The  source  of  error  must  be  in  our  interpretation 
of  the  words  of  Scripture,  or  our  interpretation  of  the  facts 
of  nature.  If  both  are  rightly  interpreted,  they  must  agree. 

Sincerity  of  purpose  will  alwa}^s  be  accompanied  with 
humility.  This  will  save  a man  from  dogmatizing  too 
positively  either  in  this  direction  or  that.  There  are  con- 
fessedly a great  many  men  who  dogmatize  most  offensively 
from  the  theological  stand-point.  In  both  departments 
there  are  foolish,  conceited  men  who  think  they  know  it  all, 
and  they  are  impatient  of  all  contradiction,  yes,  even  of  all 

honest  doubt.  If  they  meet  with  difficulties,  they  “cut  the 
C 


i8 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


knot”  by  a very  decided  dictum  of  their  own.  They  are 
recklessly  iinscrnpiilous;  and  like  “fools,  boldly  rush  over 
ground  where  angels  fear  to  tread,”  even  as  Prof.  Tyndall, 
who  admits  that  much  of  the  interest  of  his  alfirmative  posi- 
tions is  found  in  their  audacity.  But  modest  men  are  more 
distrustful  of  their  own  powers  and  their  own  attainments. 
If  they  find  themselves  in  conflict  with  the  matured  opinions 
and  honest  convictions  of  good  men,  and,  especially,  if  they 
find  themselves  arrayed  against  the  spirit  and  teachings  of 
that  Book  which  the  wisest  and  best  men  of  all  ages  have 
revered  as  divine,  the  first  question  they. ask  is,  Am  I right? 
May  not  these  men  have  been  in  possession  of  facts  and 
principles  more  favorable  to  the  formation  of  correct  opin- 
ions? May  I not  be  misled  by  my  prejudices,  by  my  one- 
sided education,  by  my  limited  experiences,  and  my  youthful 
impetuosity?  Ought  not  I to  reconsider  my  opinions,  and 
review  my  own  proofs?  This  is  the  spirit  in  which  the  man 
of  sincere  purposes,  who  desires  only  to  know  the  truth,  will 
act,  and  acting  thus,  he  will  come  to  the  light  at  last. 

The  existence  of  Christianity  in  the  world  is  at  any  rate 
a singular  fact.  Its  origin,  its  history,  its  achievements,  aie 
all  unique.  It  has  no  parallel  in  the  histoiy  of  the  world. 
It  has  stimulated  more  thought,  it  has  exerted  more  influence 
on  society,  on  governments,  on  national  life,  than  any  other 
system  of  opinions;  as  Jean  Paul  Eichter  has  felicitously 
said,  “ Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  his  pierced  hands  has  raised 
empii'es  from  their  foundations,  turned  the  stream  of  history 
from  its  ancient  channels,  and  still  continues  to  rule  and 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


19 


guide  the  ages.”  It  has  been  accepted  as  divine  by  the  wisest 
meri,  the  first  scholars,  the  ablest  jurists,  the  greatest 
scientists,  in  all  lands,  and  to-day,  it  cannot  be  denied,  the 
Church  embraces  tlie  first  minds  of  the  age.  This  fact 
should  suggest  to  young  men  that  Christianity  deserves,  at 
least,  a serious  consideration.  It  is  not  to  be  dismissed  with 
a jest.  The  men  wlio  have  believed  in  Christianity,  have 
not  done  so  without  a serious  examination,  and  a careful 
scrutiny  of  its  evidences.  And  no  sober,  thoughtful  man 
will  feel  that  it  is  to  be  i*ejected  hastily,  or  thoughtlessly 
despised. 

Sincerit}^  of  purpose  wilt  prompt  us  tq  use  all  means  for 
the  attainment  of  Truth. 

The  most  important  of  these  is  prayer, — prayer  for  di- 
vine light  and  guidance.  An  honest  man  desires  light,  and  he 
will  thankfully  accept  it  from  whatever  source.  And  as  on 
every  hypothesis  proposed,  God  is  the  source  of  all  light  and 
all  truths  he  will  ask  for  light  from  him.  Even  if  he  has 
doubts  as  to  the  doctrine  of  miracles  and  of  direct  plenary 
inspiration,  he  must  believe  that  God  is  near  to  all  human 
souls,  and  that  he  visits  all  human  hearts,  if  not  in  a super- 
natural, then  in  a natural  way.  Therefore  all  pure  and 
noble  men  in  Christian  and  in  heathen  lands  have  prayed. 
Socrates,  Plato,  Epictetus,  M.  Aurelius,  prayed.  Cartesius, 
Locke,  Bacon,  Leibitz,  Kewton,  Faraday,  Sir  D.  Brewster, 
Sir  Charles  Bell,  Sir  John  Herschel,  Dr.  Carpenter,  Prof. 
Huggins,  Dr.  Owen,  Prof.  Adams,  prayed.  If  these  great 
lights  of  philosophy  and  science  prayed,  and  were  raised  up 


20 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


into  a clearer  light  and  purer  life  by  prayer,  it  will  be  no 
humiliation  for  an  under-graduate  to  pray.  Nay,  on  the 
authority  of  Prof.  Whewell  (History  of  Inductive  Sciences) 
I affirm  that  the  greatest  discoveries  in  science  were  made  by 
men  of  prayer.  If  you  want  calmness  of  spirit,  clearness  of 
intellectual  vision,  pray.  If  you  are  in  doubt  and  perplexity, 
pray.  If  you  want  light,  pray  to  the  Father  of  Lights. 
And  if  you  cannot  use  any  of  the  forms  of  prayer  employed 
by  the  Christian  church,  if  the  Lord’s  prayer  is  not  to  your 
taste,  here  is  one  from  the  heathen  Socrates,  “ God  grant 
that  I may  be  inwardly  pure,  and  that  my  lot  may  be  such 
as  shall  best  agree  with  a right  disposition  of  mind.” 

Finally,  remember  you  are  here  on  the  earth  to  do 
something  more  than  to  think,  you  are  here  to  act.  You  are 
here  to  purify  yourselves  from  evil,  and  develop  a noble,  pure 
and  useful  life.  Society  also  has  demands  upon  you.  It 
is  your  dutj^  to  labor  for  the  welfare  of  the  race. 

Skepticism  will  unfit  you  for  noble  work.  It  will  put 
you  out  of  sympathy  with  mankind.  As  a skeptic  you  are  in 
danger  of  becoming  either  a sensualist  or  a stoic.  You  will 
become  selfish  and  morose.  You  will  despise  your  fellow- 
men.  How  do  I know  this,  you  may  ask.  I answer  by 
quoting  the  words  of  Voltaire:  “Man  loves  life,  yet  he 

knows  he  must  die.  He  spends  his  existence  in  diffusing  the 
miseries  he  has  suffered,  cutting  tho  throats  of  his  fellow 
creatures  for  paj\  cheating  and  being  cheated.  The  bulk  of 
mankind,”  he  continues,  “ are  nothing  more  than  a crowd 
of  wretches,  equally  criminal,  equally  unfortunate.  I trem- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


21 


ble  at  this  picture  because  it  is  a complaint  against  Provi- 
dence, and  I wish  I had  never  been  born.’"  How  different 
the  language  of  Paul:  “I  have  fought  a good  fight.  I have 
finished  my  course.  I have  kept  my  faith.  Henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a crown,  which  the  Lord,  the 
Righteous  Judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day.” 


LECTURE  II. 


Oh  that  I knevj  vjhere  I mig-ht  find  him,  that  I fnight  come  even  to 
his  seat  ! 

I vjould  order  my  cause  before  him^  and  fill  my  mouth  with  argu- 
ments.— ^JOB  XXIII.  3,  4. 

Two  things  are  necessary  to  render  Religion  possible: 
first,  the  presence  of  a religious  faculty  in  man;  second, 
the  existence  of  a Personal  God  who  can  be  known.,  and 
thus  become  the  object  of  that  religious  faculty. 

These  two  fundamental  principles  which  lie  at  the 
basis  of  all  religion,  natural  or  revealed,  I shall  assume  as 
the  common  ground  upon  which  we  are  all  agreed.  There 
may,  perhaps,  be  present  a few  persons  who  question  the 
being  of  a personal  God,  that  is,  they  deny  that  the  Ultimate 
Principle  and  Cause  of  all  existence  is  or  has  Intelligence, 
Will,  and  Moral  Affections;  for  these  are  the  momenta,  or 
elements,  of  all  Personality.  On  this  small  class  my  argu- 
ments will,  of  course,  be  lost.  They  are  entrenched  behind 
a solitary  breastwork  of  what  Fichte  calls  ‘‘dirt-philosophy,” 
which  I cannot  now  turn  aside  to  assault.  My  present  object 
is  to  carry  a single  position,  which  I regard  as  the  main 
position  of  the  enemies  of  our  faith — the  denial  of  special  or 
supernatural  revelation. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


23 


The  belief  which  I have  avowed,  and  wiiich  I have 

J 

pledged  myself  to  defend  in  this  course  of  Lectures,  is  that 
in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  we  have  a special  reveLition  of 
the  will  of  God;  a revelation  which  is  more  immediate  and 
comprehensive;  a revelation  which  goes  deeper  into  the 
nature  and  relation  of  things;  and  which  answers  more 
questions  of  personal  interest  and  everlasting  moment  to  us 
all,  than  any  other  revelation  that  has  yet  been  given  to  our 
race.  In  short,  it  is  a revelation  which  vindicates  its  own 
claim  to  be  regarded  as  supernatural. 

It  has  been  the  universal  beli  .f  of  all  ages  that  God  may 
be  known^  or  in  other  words,  that  He  may  reveal  himself;  for 
what  is  a revelation  but  a disclosure,  a discovering  to  others, 
a making  known,  a manifestation  ? And  where  is  the  man 
that  believes  in  the  existence  of  a God,  who  does  not  also 
believe  that,  in  some  way.  He  has  revealed  himself ; for  how 
otherwise  could  He  be  known  ? Did  God  create  the  universe  ? 
Then  the  creation  is  a revelation  of  God,  as  tlie  creation  of 
every  artist,  every  poet,  every  mechanist,  is  a revelation  of 
his  thought.  Does  God  rule  over  the  universe  that  He  has 
made?  Then  the  entire  course  of  history  must  be  a revela- 
tion of  God,  and  must  indicate  something  of  a predetermined 
goal  toward  which  he  is  guiding  humanity.  J^ature,  Hu- 
manity, and  History  are  revelations  of  God.  These  indicate 
not  only  his  being,  but  his  universal  presence,  his  immediate 
agency.  All  the  physical  forces  are  but  the  veiled  manifes- 
tations of  ids  omnipresent  Energy.  All  vital  organisms  are 
but  the  efflorescence  of  his  indwelling  Life.  All  the  necessary 


24 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


and  changeless  ideas  of  the  reason  of  man  are  the  inspirations 
of  his  eternal  Reason.  And  all  the  judgments  of  history  are 
the  judgments  of  God.  So  all  profound  and  earnest  thinkers 
have  said  in  every  age.  God  is  evermore  revealing  himself 
to  man,  in  the  symbolism  of  nature,  the  ideas  of  reason,  and 
the  verdicts  of  history. 

But  are  these  the  only  media  of  Divine  communications, 
the  only  methods  in  which  God  can  make  himself  known  ? 
Why  may  He  not  speak  to  us  through  human  conceptions, 
and  in  the  forms  of  human  speech  ? Why  may  He  not  take 
a more  direct  and  immediate  part  in  the  education  of  our 
race,  and  by  the  authority  of  his  spoken  word,  permit  us  to 
conceive  Him  simply  and  clearly  as  our  Father  and  Friend? 
Is  there  anything  improbable  in  the  conception  and  the  hope 
that  God  will  act  the  part  of  a compassionate  Parent  or 
loving  Teacher,  and  aid  our  feeble  understanding  by  a 
simpler  exposition  of  our  duty  in  languagethat  is  natural  to 
us,  and  in  the  condescending  use  of  ligures  and  analogies 
familiar  to  our  minds?  And,  above  all,  what  prevents  his 
answering  directly  those  earnest  questionings  of  the  human 
soul  about  its  future  life  and  destiny,  and  those  intense 
yearnings  for  pardon,  purity,  and  peace,  to  which  all  nature 
is  a dumb  and  silent  oracle?  To  put  the  case  in  harmony 
with  the  supposed  facts,  may  not  God  veil  himself  in  human 
flesh,  and  taking  possession  of  a human  soul,  make  that  his 
temple  and  his  oracle?  May  He  not  accompany  that  living 
Oracle  with  such  supernatural  marks  and  attestations,  as 
shall  convince  men  that  his  words  are,  in  truth,  the  words  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


25 


God,  and  in  his  providence  preserve  the  record  of  those 
words  for  the  instruction  of  succeedin^^  generations  of  men  ? 

I propose  to  show,  first,  that  there  are  ^tvow^  d priori 
presumptions  that  such  a verbal  revelation  would  be  made; 
secondl}^  that  in  the  Scriptures,  we  have  a well  attested, 
record  of  such  Divine  interposition  on  the  part  of  God ; and 
thirdly,  that  the  evidence  furnished  to  us  of  the  accuracy 
and  truthfulness  of  this  record,  is  such  as  ought  to  satisfy  a 
jury  of  honest  men. 

That  there  are  strong  d priori  probabilities  that  such  a 
verbal  revelation  would  be  made,  will,  I think,  be  evident 
from  the  discussion  of  the  following  propositions : 

1.  First,  Religion  is,  and  has  ever  been,  a conscious 
necessity  of  man’s  spiritual  and  immortal  nature. 

Religion  is  based  upon  the  recognition  of  our  moral 
relations  to  God,  just  as  Morality  is  based  upon  the  recogni- 
tion of  our  moral  relations  to  our  fellow-men.  Therefore, 
as  1 define  Morality  to  be  the  fultillment  of  the  duties  which 
arise  out  of  my  relations  to  my  fellow-men,  so  I define  re- 
ligion to  be  the  fulfillment  of  the  duties  which  arise  out  of 
my  relations  to  God.  These  duties  are,  first.  Moral  Rev- 
erence; second.  Conscious  Trust;  third.  Free  Obedience; 
or  briefly.  Worship,  Faith,  Love.  Now  these  three.  Wor- 
ship, or  moral  reverence,  Faith,  or  conscious  trust.  Love, 
or  free  obedience,  must  assimilate  man  to,  and  bring 
him  into  communion  with,  the  object  of  his  Religion,  that 
is,  into  likeness  unto  and  fellowship  with  God.  Religion 
may  therefore  be  defined  comprehensively,  as  that  knowl- 


36 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


edge  of  our  personal  relations  to  God,  and  tliat  performance 
of  our  consequent  duties  to  God,  which  shall  raise  us  into 
fellowship  with  God. 

This  is  a definition  of  religion  to  which,  I think,  few 
will  object.  Plato,  tlie  heathen  philosopher,  on  the  one  side, 
and  Jeremy  Taylor,  the  Christian  divine,  on  the  other  side, 
have  given  similar  definitions.  And  it  is  not  materially 
different  from  the  one  given  by  Theodore  Parker,  in  his 
“ Discourse  on  Religion”:  Religion  is  voluntary  obedience 

to  the  Law  of  God,  inward  and  outward  obedience  to  that 

law  he  has  written  on  our  nature Through  it  we  regard 

Him  as  the  absolute  object  of  Reverence,  Faith,  and  Love.” 

Now,  a religion  which  more  or  less  fulfills  these  condi- 
tions, that  is,  which  reveals  our  relations  and  duties  to  God, 
and  leads  us  to  regard  Him  as  the  absolute  object  of  Rever- 
ence, Confidence,  and  Love,  is,  always  has  been,  and  will 
always  continue  to  be,  a necessity  of  man’s  nature. 

Under  whatever  aspect  you  regard  man, — wliether  you 
confine  your  attention  solely  to  his  mental  constitution,  and 
ask  what  are  the  facts  of  human  consciousness;  or  j^ou  direct 
your  attention  to  the  study  of  human  history,  and  ask  how 
the  universal  consciousness  of  our  race  has  developed  itself 
in  past  ages,  you  will  find  that  man  needs  a religion  to  sat- 
isfy the  instinctive  longings  of  his  heart,  to  resolve  the  great 
problem  of  his  intellect,  and  to  fill  up  the  complement  of  his 
moral  being.  The  logic  of  man’s  intellectual  nature,  the 
instincts  of  his  emotional  nature,  the  wants  of  his  volitional 
or  moral  nature,  demand  a religion  ; while  all  history  assures 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


27 


US  that  there  never  was  a period  when  our  race  was  destitute 
of  some  form  of  religion. 

Direct  your  attention,  for  a few  moments,  to  the  mental 
constitution  of  man,  and  ask,  Do  the  facts  of  consciousness 
clearly  prove  that  religion  is  a necessity  of  man’s  spiritual 
nature?  The  answer,  I think,  is  obvious.  The  logic  of  man’s 
intellectual  nature,  the  laws  of  thought  which  the  Creator 
has  imposed  upon  the  human  mind,  compel  men  to  recognize 
a God.  No  man  can  seriously  contemplate  nature  without 
feeling  that  ‘‘a  principle  of  order,”  and  “ a principle  of  spec- 
ial adaptation,’’  pervade  the  universe.  Eeason  teacheshim  that 
this  order,  these  adaptations,  had  a beginning.  The  present 
order  of  things  is  finite  and  temporal,  therefore  it  cannot 
have  the  reason  of  its  existence  in  itself.  The  history  of  the 
universe  is  a perpetual  genesis,  a history  of  succession  and 
change,  therefore  it  cannot  be  eternal.  Geology,  tracing 
back  the  history  of  our  earth  as  written  in  fossil  hieroglyphs 
upon  its  rocks,  tells  us  it  had  a beginning.  Modern  Physics 
by  its  great  law  of  Dissipation  of  Energy  assures  us  that  the 
universe  had  a beginning, and  must  come  to  an  end.  History, 
language,  fossil  osteology,  the  state  of  the  arts  and  sciences, 
tell  us  that  the  human  race  had  a beginning.  In  view  of 
the  facts  of  order  and  special  adaptation  which  have  had  a 
commencement  in  time,  man  is  compelled,  b}^  the  necessaiy 
laws  of  his  intelligence,  to  affirm  that  they  had  a beginning 
in  Mind,  in  an  Intelligent  Will,  as  their  efficient  and  origin- 
ating Cause. 

Associated  with,  perhaps  preceding,  all  definite  ideas  of 


28 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


God,  there  exist  in  the  human  mind  certain  feelings  of  awe 
and  revei’ence  and  fear,  which  arise  spontaneously  in  pres- 
ence of  the  vastness  and  grandeur  and  magnificence  of  the 
universe,  and  of  the  power  and  glory  of  which  the  created 
universe  is  but  the  symbol  and  shadow.  There  is  the  felt 
apprehension  that  beyond  and  back  of  the  visible  and 
tangible,  there  is  a personal,  living  Power,  which  is  the 
foundation  of  all,  and  which  fashions  all,  and  fills  all  with 
its  light  and  life;  that  “ the  universe  is  the  living  vesture  in 
which  the  Invisible  has  robed  his  mysterious  loveliness.” 
There  is  the  feeling  of  an  overshadowing  Presence  which 
“ conipasseth  a man  beliind  and  before,  and  lays  its  hand 
upon  him.” 

]^rovv,  we  hold  that  this  feeling  and  sentiment  of  the 
Divine,  the  supernatural,  exists  in  every  mind.  It  may  be, 
it  undoubtedly  is,  somewhat  modified  in  its  manifestations, 
by  the  circumstances  in  which  men  are  placed,  and  the 
degree  of  culture  they  have  enjoyed.  The  African  Fetichist, 
in  his  moral  and  intellectual  debasement,  conceives  a super- 
natural power  enshrined  in  every  object  of  nature.  The 
rude  Fijian  regards  with  dread,  and  even  terror,  the  Being 
who  darts  the  lightning  and  wields  the  thunderbolts.  The 
Indian  ‘‘sees  God  in  clouds,  and  hears  Him  in  the  wind.” 
The  Scottish  herdsman  on  the  lonely  mountain-top  “feels 
the  presence  and  the  power  of  greatness,”  and  “in  its  fixed 
and  steady  lineaments,  he  sees  an  ebbing  and  flowing  mind.” 
The  philosopher  lifts  his  eyes  to  the  starry  heavens  in  all  the 
depth  of  their  concave,  and  with  all  their  constellations  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


29 


glory  moving  on  in  solemn  grandeur,  and  to  his  mind  these 
immeasurable  regions  seem  “filled  with  tlie  splendors  of  the 
Deity,  and  crowded  with  the  monuments  of  his  power”;  or 
he  turns  his  eye  to  “the  Moral  Law  within,”  and  he  hears 
the  voice  of  an  intelligent  and  righteous  God.  In  all  these 
cases  we  have  a revelation  of  the  sentiment  of  the  Divine, 
which  dwells  alike  in  all  human  minds. 

Along  with  this  sentiment  of  the  Divine  there  is  also 
associated,  in  all  human  minds,  an  instinctive  yearning  after 
the  Invisible ; not  a mere  feeling  of  curiosity  to  pierce  the 
mystery  of  being  and  of  life,  but  what  Paul  designates  “a 
feeling  after  God,”  which  prompts  man  to  seek  after  a deeper 
knowledge,  and  a more  immediate  consciousness.  To  attain 
this  deeper  knowledge,  this  more  conscious  realization  of 
the  being  and  the  presence  of  God,  has  been  the  effort  of  all 
philosophy  and  all  religion  in  all  ages.  The  Hindoo  Yogis 
proposes  to  withdraw  into  his  inmost  self,  and  by  a complete 
suspension  of  all  his  active  powers,  to  become  absorbed  and 
swallowed  up  in  the  Infinite.  Plato  and  his  followers  sought 
by  an  immediate  abstraction  to  apprehend  “the  unchange- 
able and  permanent  Being,”  and  by  a loving  contemplation, 
to  become  “ assimilated  to  the  Deity,”  and  in  this  way,  to 
attain  the  immediate  consciousness  of  God.  The  Neo- 
Platonic  mystic  sought  by  asceticism  and  self-mortification 
to  prepare  himself  for  divine  communings.  He  would  con- 
template the  divine  perfection  in  himself;  and  in  an  ecstatic 
state,  wherein  all  individuality  vanishes,  he  would  realize  a 
unison,  or  indentity,  with  the  Divine  Essence.  While  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


30 

universal  Cliurcli  of  God  has  in  her  purest  days  always 
taught  that  man  may,  by  inward  purity  and  a believing 
love,  be  rendered  capable  of  spiritually  apprehending,  and 
consciously  feeling,  the  presence  of  God.  Some  may  be  dis- 
posed to  pronounce  all  this  mere  m3^sticism.  We  answer, 
the  living  internal  energy  of  religion  is  always  mystical;  it 
is  grounded  in  feeling^ — a sensus  miminis'’'’  common  to  hu- 
manity. It  is  the  mysterious  sentiment  of  the  Divine;  it  is 
the  prolepsis  of  the  human  spirit  reaching  out  toward  the 
Inlinite,  the  living  susceptibility  of  our  sinritual  nature  to 
the  powers  and  influence  of  the  higher  world.  “It  is  upon 
this  inner  instinct  of  the  supermitural  that  all  religion  rests. 
I do  not  say  that  every  religious  idea,  but  whatever  is 
positive,  practical,  powerful,  durable,  and  popular.  Eveiy- 
where,  in  all  climates,  in  all  epochs  of  history,  and  in 
degrees  of  civilization,  man  is  animated  by  the  sentiment,  1 
would  rather  say  presentiment,  that  the  world  in  which  lie 
moves,  the  facts  which  regularly  and  constantly  succeed 
each  other,  are  not  all.  In  vain  he  daily  makes  discoveries 
and  conquests  in  this  vast  universe;  in  vain  he  observes  and 
learnedly  verities  the  general  laws  which  govern  it;  his 
thought  is  not  enclosed  in  the  world  surrendered  to  his 
science;  the  spectacle  of  it  does  not  sutfice  his  soul;  it  is 
raised  beyond  it;  it  searches  after  and  catches  glimpses  of 
something  beyond  it;  it  aspires  higher  both  for  the  universe 
and  itself;  it  aims  at  another  destiny,  another  master. 

‘ Par  dela  tons  ces  cieux  le  Dieu  des  cieux  reside.’ 

So  Voltaire  has  said,  and  the  God  who  is  bejmnd  tlie  skies 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


31 

is  not  nature  personified,  but  a supernatural  Personality. 
It  is  to  this  highest  Personality  that  all  religions  address 
themselves.  It  is  to  bring  man  into  communion  with  Him 
that  they  exist.” 

2.  The  constitution  of  man’s  moral  nature  also  con- 
strains him  to  recognize  his  moral  relations  to  God. 

He  looks  within,  and  there  he  finds  tliree  grand  moial 
phenomena  revealed;  namely,  a sense  of  dependence,  a con- 
sciousness of  duty,  and  a feeling  of  accountability.  These 
sentiments  are  connatural  to  the  human  mind.  A being 
wanting  in  these  great  attributes  of  character  would  be 
ranked  as  less  than  man.  Ponder  well  the  logical  conse- 
quences which  flow  from  tne  fact  that  these  feelings  are 
common  to  every  human  mind. 

Every  human  being  finds  witliin  his  own  heart  a sense 
of  dependence  upon  a Power  which  is  superior  to  himself, — 
dependence  not  on  a ‘"'blind  inexorable  Fate  ’’(that  has 
never  been  the  belief  of  humanity),  but  upon  a living  Per- 
sonality, a being  who  can  show  favor  or  displeasure,  and 
who  may  be  the  object  of  hope  or  fear,  confidence  or  dread. 

And,  now,  within  the  sphere  of  moral  freedom,  does  not 
dependence  necessarily  imply  obligation? — obligation  to 
conform  to  the  will  of  this  Supreme  Power.  Freedom  of 
self-determination,  of  choice,  is  not  to  do  just  as  we  please. 
Liberty  is  not  lawlessness.  “ Fi-eedom  within  the  bounds  of 
the  law  ” is  at  once  the  condition  and  the  glory  of  rational 
existence. 

The  self-determining  power  of  man  is  circumscribed  by 


32 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


the  moral  law  in  the  consciousness  of  man.  Self-deter- 
mination alone  does  not  sutfice  for  the  full  conception  of 
responsible  freedom ; it  properly  only  becomes  will  by  being 
an  intelligent  and  conscious  determination,  that  is,  the 
rational  subject  is  able,  previously,  to  recognize  “the  right,” 
and  present  before  his  mind  what  he  ought  to  do,  and  what 
he  is  morally  bound  to  realize  and  actualize  by  his  own  self- 
determination  and  choice.  Accordingly,  we  find  in  our 
inmost  being  a sense  of  obligation  to  obey  the  moral  law  as 
revealed  in  the  conscience.  As  we  cannot  become  conscious 
of  self  without  also  becoming  conscious  of  God,  so  we  can- 
not become  properly  conscious  of  self-determination,  until 
we  have  recognized  in  conscience  a law  for  the  movements 
of  the  will. 

Now  this  moral  law,  as  revealed  in  the  conscience,  is  not 
a mere  autonomy,  a simple  subjective  law  having  no  rela- 
tion to  a personal  lawgiver  out  of  and  above  man.  Every 
admonition  of  conscience  directly  excites  the  consciousness 
of  a God  to  whom  man  is  accountable.  The  universal  con- 
sciousness of  our  race,  as  revealed  in  history,  has  always 
associated  the  phenomena  of  conscience  with  the  idea  of 
personal  Power  above  man,  to  whom  he  is  subject  and  upon 
whom  he  depends.  In  every  age,  the  voice  of  conscience 
has  been  regarded  as  the  voice  of  God,  so  that  when  it  has 
filled  man  with  guilty  apprehensions,  he  has  had  recourse 
to  sacrifices  and  penances  and  prayers  to  expiate  his  wrath. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  if  man  has  duties,  there  must  be  a 
self-conscious  will  by  whom  these  duties  are  imposed,  for 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


33 


only'a  real  will  can  be  legislative.  If  man  has  a sense  of 
obligation^  there  mast  be  a supreme  authority  by  which  he 
is  obliged.  If  he  is  responsible,  there  must  be  a being  to 
whom  he  is  accountable.  It  cannot  be  said  that  he  is  ac- 
countable to  himself,  for  by  that  supposition  the  idea  of 
duty  is  obliterated,  and  right  becomes  identical  with 
mere  interest  or  pleasure.  It  cannot  be  said  that  he  is 
simply  responsible  to  society,  to  mere  conventions  of  human 
opinions  and  human  governments ; for  then  right  becomes 
a mere  creature  of  human  legislation,  and  justice  is  nothing 
but  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  strong  who  tyrannize  over  the 
weak.  Might  constitutes  right.  Against  such  hypotheses 
the  human  mind,  however,  instinctively  revolts.  Mankind 
feel,  universally,  that  there  is  an  authority  beyond  all  human 
governments,  and  a higher  law  above  all  human  laws,  from 
whence  all  their  powers  are  derived.  That  higheiTaw  is  the 
Law  of  God,  that  supreme  authority  is  the  God  of  Justice. 
To  this  eternally  just  God,  innocence,  under  oppression  and 
wrong,  has  made  its  proud  appeal,  like  tliat  of  Prometheus 
to  the  elements,  to  the  witnessing  clouds,  to  coming  ages, 
and  has  been  sustained  and  comforted.  And  to  that  higher 
law  the  weak  have  conlidently  appealed  against  the  unright- 
eous enactments  of  the  strong,  and  have  linally  conquered. 
The  last  and  inmost  ground  of  all  obligation  is  thus  the 
conscious  relation  of  the  moral  creature  to  God.  The  sense 
of  absolute  dependence  upon  a Supreme  Being  compels  man, 
even  while  conscious  of  subjective  freedom,  to  recognize  at 

the  same  time  his  obligation  to  determine  himself  in  har- 
D 


34 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


mony  with  the  will  of  Him  “in  whom  we  live,  and  move, 
and  are.” 

This  feeling  of  dependence,  and  this  consequent  sense 
of  obligation,  lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  all  religion. 
They  lead  the  mind  towards  God,  and  anchor  it  in  the  Di- 
vine. They  prompt  man  to  pray,  and  inspire  him  Avith  an 
instinctive  confidence  in  the  efficacy  of  praj^er.  So  that 
prayer  is  natural  to  man,  and  necessary  to  man.  Never  yet 
has  the  traveler  found  a people  on  earth  Avithout  prayer. 
Eaces  of  men  have  been  found  Avithout  houses,  Avithout  rai- 
ment, Avithout  arts  and  sciences,  but  neA^er  Avithout  prayer 
any  more  than  Avithout  speech.  Plutarch  wrote,  eighteen 
centuries  ago : “If  you  go  through  all  the  Avorld,  you  may 
find  cities  Avithout  Avails,  Avithout  letters,  without  rulers, 
Avithout  money,  Avithout  theatres,  but  never  Avithout  temples 
and  gods,  or  Avithout  pro.yers^  oaths,  prophecies,  and  sacri- 
fices, used  to  obtain  blessings  and  benefits,  or  to  avert  curses 
and  calamities.”  The  naturalness  of  prayer  is  admitted 
even  by  the  modern  unbeliever.  Gerrit  Smith  says  : “ Let 
us  who  believe  that  the  religion  of  reason  calls  for  the  re- 
ligion of  nature,  remember  that  the  floAv  of  prayer  is  just 
as  natural  as  the  flow  of  water;  the  prayerless  man  has  be- 
come an  unnatural  man.”  is  man  in  sorroAV  or  in  danger, 
his  most  natural  and  spontaneous  refuge  is  in  prayer.  The 
suffering,  bcAvildered,  terror-stricken  soul  turns  tOAvard  God. 
“ Nature  in  an  agony  is  no  atheist;  the  soul  that  knoAvs  not 
Avhere  to  fly,  flies  to  God.”  And  in  the  hour  of  deliverance 
and  joy,  a feeling  of  gratitude  pervades  the  soul,  and  grati- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


35 


tilde,  too,  not  to  some  blind  nature-force,  to  some  uncon- 
scious and  impersonal  power,  but  gratitude  to  God.  The 
soul’s  natural  and  appropriate  language  in  the  hour  of  de- 
liverance is  thanksgiving  and  praise. 

This  universal  tendency  to  recognize  a superior  Power 
upon  whom  we  are  dependent,  and  by  whose  hand  our  well- 
being and  our  destinies  are  absolutel}^  controlled,  has  re- 
vealed itself  even  amid  the  most  complicated  forms  of  poly- 
theistic worship.  Amid  the  even  and  undisturbed  flow  of 
every-day  life,  they  might  be  satisflod  with  the  worship  of 
subordinate  deities,  but  in  the  midst  of  sudden  and  unex- 
pected calamities  and  of  terrible  catastrophes,  then  they  cry 
to  the  {Supreme  God.  “When  alarmed  by  an  earthquake,” 
says  Aulus  Gellius,  “the  ancient  Romans  were  accustomed 
to  pray,  not  to  some  one  of  the  gods  individually,  but  to 
God  in  general,  as  to  tlie  Unknoion.'^'* 

3.  The  mysteiy  of  Life,  the  deeper  mystery  of  Death, 
prompt  men  to  recognize  the  need  of  religion. 

Whence  am  I ? Whither  do  1 tend  ? Wherefore  am  I 
here  ? What  is  Life  ? What  is  Death  ? AYho  has  not  asked 
these  questions?  There  are  those  who  answer.  Life  has  no 
meaning  and  purpose.  Death  is  nothing,  and  there  is  naught 
after  death.  The  world  is,  for  the  living,  a workshop,  for 
the  dead,  a grave.  The  generations  of  men  are  but  a woe- 
ful pageantry  moving  across  the  stage  out  of  darkness  into 
darkness.  Life  is  a play, — the  play  of  phantasms  in  an 
empty  void. 

How  melancholy  is  the  life  of  man  if  this  be  true.  Well 


3^ 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


might  Voltaire  say  of  man,  ‘‘Miserable  wretch!  weary  of 
life,  and  yet  afraid  to  die ! ” Every  time  the  funeral  bell 
tolls,  the  thought  in  some  shape  suggests  itself,  “I  am  a 
mortal,  dying  man!  The  day  will  come  when  the  hearse 
will  wait  for  me,  and  all  this  bright  world  will  go  on  with- 
out me,  and  I shall  be  left  in  the  grave  to  darkness,  loneli- 
ness, silence,  and  the  worm.  Between  me  and  annihilation 
there  is  but  a breath.”  How  sad  is  human  life,  if  we  have 
no  inheritance  in  the  past,  and  no  hope  in  the  future.  If  the^ 
friends  we  have  loved  dearer  than  life  itself,  and  the  pre- 
cious memories  of  whom  grow  richer  and  purer  as  we  grow 
older,  are  now  only  loathsome  clay,  and  their  virtues,  tal- 
ents, acquisitions,  graces,  have  exhaled  into  thin  air,  how 
are  the  dewy  umbrage  of  the  sympathies  withered,  and  the 
fountains  of  the  heart  dried  up ! 

“ Shall  hope  never  visit  the  mouldering  urn  ? 

Shall  day  never  dawn  on  the  night  of  the  grave? ” 

If  not,  then  in  the  words  of  Voltaire,  “I  wish  I had 
never  been  born ! ” Man  comes  into  the  world  most  won- 
drously  endowed;  he  has  powers  of  indefinite  range  and 
almost  inlinite  expansion.  He  can  conceive  an  immortality. 
He  has  instinctive  longings  for  an  endless  life.  Under  the 
power  of  this  belief,  he  can  work  with  a sense  of  the  sub- 
limest  interest.  Shall  we  say  that  he  is  the  sport  of  delusive 
hopes,  and  mocked  with  vain  ambitions?  Who  shall  answer 
this  question  for  us  all?  Surely  God  alone.  We  want  to 
hear  a voice  coming  from  the  darkness  of  eternity,  saying, 

“ Man  shall  live  again!”  We  need  a religion  which  shall 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


37 


meet  and  answer  these  mysterious  yearnings  of  the  human 
heart.  And,  now,  is  there  a book  on  earth  so  full  of  eternal 
life,  so  sparkling  with  immortal  hopes,  as  the  Bible?  Soc- 
rates speaks  doubtingly.  Christ  speaks  positively.  This  is 
what  our  hearts  crave.  We  need  a religion  that  shall  bring 
life  and  immortality  to  light. 

4.  The  present  moral  condition  of  man,  constrains  him 
to  recognize  the  need  of  some  remedial  agency,  which  shall 
restore  man  to  moral  order,  and  bring  him  power  and  pur- 
ity and  peace. 

We  have  said  that  every  man  feels  himself  to  be  an  ac- 
countable being ; we  now  add  that  he  is  conscious  that  in 
wrong-doing,  he  is  deserving  of  blame  and  of  punishment. 
Deep  within  the  soul  of  the  transgressor  is  the  consciousness 
that  he  is  a guilty  man,  and  he  is  haunted  with  the  perpetual 
apprehension  of  a retribution,  which,  like  the  spectre  of  evil 
omen,  crosses  his  every  path,  and  meets  him  at  every  turn. 

“ ’Tis  guilt  alone, 

Like  brain-sick  frenzy  in  Us  feverish  mode, 

Fills  the  light  air  with  visionary  terrors. 

And  shapeless  forms  of  fear.” 

Man  does  not  possess  this  consciousness  of  guilt,  so  much 
as  it  holds  possession  of  him.  It  pursues  the  fugitive  from 
justice,  and  it  lays  hold  on  the  man  who  has  resisted  or 
escaped  the  hand  of  the  executioner.  The  sense  of  guilt  is 
a power  over  and  above  man ; a power  so  wonderful  that  it 
often  compels  the  most  reckless  criminal  to  deliver  himself 
up,  with  the  confession  of  his  deed,  to  the  sword  of  justice. 


38 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


when  a falsehood  would  have  easily  protected  him.  Man  is 
only  able  by  persevering,  ever-repeated  efforts  at  self-indur- 
ation, against  the  remonstrances  of  conscience,  to  withdraw 
himself  from  its  power.  His  success  is,  however,  but  very 
partial ; for  sometimes,  in  the  moments  of  his  greatest  secur- 
ity, the  reproaches  of  conscience  break  in  upon  him  like  a 
flood,  and  sweep  away  all  his  refuge  of  lies.  “The  evil 
conscience  is  the  divine  bond  which  binds  the  created  spirit, 
even  in  deep  apostasy,  to  its  Original.  In  the  consciousness 
of  guilt  there  is  revealed  the  essential  relation  of  our  spirit 
to  God,  although  misunderstood  by  man  until  he  has  some- 
thing higher  than  his  evil  conscience.  The  trouble  and  an- 
guish which  the  remonstrances  of  conscience  excite,  the 
inward  unrest  which  sometimes  seizes  the  guilty  slave  of 
sin,  are  proofs  that  he  has  not  quite  broken  away  from 
God.” 

Surely,  there  is  not  a man  upon  the  earth,  unless  he  be 
bereft  of  reason,  who  has  not  expei’ienced,  in  a greater  or 
less  degree,  this  sense  of  personal  self-accusation  and  evil 
desert  in  consequence  of  sin.  Hence  the  mysterious  appre- 
hension of  an  overshadowing  retribution,  which  haunts  the 
guilty  mind  in  every  clime,  and  the  attempts,  which  have 
been  made  in  every  age,  to  propitiate  the  righteous  displeas- 
ure of  God  by  self-inflicted  tortures  and  costliest  sacrifices, 
by  weary  pilgrimages  and  endless  prayers. 

ISTovv,  without  perplexing  ourselves  with  the  metaphys- 
ics of  the  origin  of  evil  or  the  nature  of  sin,  let  us  fix  our 
attention  upon  this  single  fact,  that  in  all  ages  men  have 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


39 


felt  the  need  of  forgiveness  of  sin,  have  prayed  for  it,  and 
have  sought  to  expiate  it  with  tears  and  blood. 

I know  there  are  philosophers  who  tell  us  that  sin  is  an 
old  grievous  delusion,  a fearful  nightmare,  which  man  may 
shake  off,  and,  as  ^^ovalis  has  said,  “suddenly  believing 
himself  to  be  moral,  he  would  become  so,”  and  casting  a 
defiant  glance  arounul  the  universe,  might  dare  any  existing 
power  to  make  him  afraid.  Most  men,  however,  will  re- 
gard this  as  a purely  fictitious  contrivance,  an  arbitrary  stop 
in  the  face  of  the  pei-ils  of  the  wilderness,  a logical  thrust 
of  the  ostrich’s  head  into  the  sand. 

We  cannot  thus  shake  off  our  forebodings,  and  forget 
our  conscious  guilt.  We  cannot  thus  defy  Omnipotence,  and 
wage  a bootless  conflict  with  despair.  We  need  a religion 
which  shall  assure  us  a pardon.  We  want  a well  authenti- 
cated revelation,  and  a conscious  Christian  experience,  which 
shall  enable  us  to  say,  in  the  language  of  that  venerable 
symbol  of  Faith  which  the  church  has  clung  to  through  the 
ages,  “I  believe  in  the  Forgiveness  of  Sins.” 

Turn  your  attention  from  the  study  of  the  individual 
to  the  history  of  the  race,  and  see  if  the  facts  of  universal 
consciousness,  as  revealed  in  history,  do  not  prove  that  re- 
ligion has  always  been  a conscious  need  of  the  human  mind. 

Religious  worship,  addressed  to  a Supreme  Being  be- 
lieved to  control  the  destiii}'  of  man,  has  been  coeval  and 
coextensive  with  the  race.  Every  nation  has  had  its  mythol- 
ogy, and  each  mythologic  system  has  been  simply  an  effort 
of  humanity  to  realize  and  embody  in  some  visible  form  the 


40 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


relations  in  which  it  feels  itself  to  be  connected  with  an  ex- 
ternal, overshadowing,  and  all-controlling  Power  and  Pres- 
ence. 

Athens  with  her  four  thousand  mediating  deities,  Rome 
with  her  crowded  pantheon  of  gods,  Egypt  with  her  de- 
grading superstitions,  Hindostan  with  her  cruel  and  revolt- 
ing rites,  all  attest  that  the  religious  principle  is  deeply  seated 
in  the  nature  of  man.  Look  down  the  long-drawn  aisles  of 
antiquity,  and  all  along  to  their  remotest  point  you  behold 
the  smoking  altar,  the  ascending  incense,  the  prostrate  form. 
Look  around  5^11  even  to  the  furthest,  darkest  corners  of  our 
earth,  and  there  you  see  the  naked  savage,  who  never  trem- 
bled in  the  presence  of  his  fellow-men,  now  trembling  in 
the  presence  of  his  unchiselled,  eyeless  god.  How  will  you 
explain  this,  except  upon  the  principle  that  the  religious  in- 
stinct is  the  most  powerful,  the  most  vital,  the  most  endur- 
ing instinct  in  the  nature  of  man  ? You  who  have  read  up 
in  tiie  history  of  the  past  are  familiar  with  numberless  ex- 
amples of  the  power  of  this  principle.  Did  remorse  cause 
the  soul  to  writhe  in  hidden  anguish;  the  altar  is  straight- 
way reared,  the  victim  bleeds,  and  some  unseen  power  is 
supplicated,  who  is  believed  capable  of  breathing  a gentle 
influence  to  calm  and  soothe  the  troubled  heart.  Did  pesti- 
lence breathe  its  poison  on  their  cities,  or  an  invading  army 
threaten  their  coasts,  or  disaster  and  defeat  overtake  their 
legions  abroad ; they  immediately  offered  the  most  costly 
sacriflces,  and  raised  their  hands  to  heaven  in  prayers,  to 
secure  the  protection  or  appease  the  anger  of  the  gods.  All 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


41 


these  instances  are  but  the  expression  of  the  profound  sense 
of  the  need  of  religion  which  is  felt  by  our  entire  race. 
The  truly  philosophic  mind  cannot  despise  the  heathen  at 
his  prayers.  In  the  savage  who  licks  the  dust  at  the  feet  of 
some  monster  idol ; in  the  eastern  Magian  who  worships  the 
sun  as  the  highest  symbol  of  ‘*the  Unseen ; ” in  the  Hindoo 
who  casts  himself  beneath  the  wheels  of  Juggernaut,  or 
]3lunges  into  the  Ganges  in  search  of  immortality:  in  all 
these,  he  sees  a sublime  instinct  revealed,  and  any  one  of 
these  mistaken  forms  of  religion  are  in  his  eyes  the  strug- 
glings  of  the  human  spirit  to  find  its  real  centre  and  rest. 

The  inward  testimony  of  the  mind,  the  past  experience 
of  the  race,  the  universal  prevalence  of  religious  rites,  and 
the  fact  that  all  languages  abound  with  terms  relating  to  the 
being  and  worship  of  God,  clearly  attest  that  the  religious 
principle  is  deeply  seated  in  the  nature  of  man,  and  that  it 
has  occupied  the  thought,  and  stirred  the  feelings  of  every 
rational  man,  in  every  age.  It  has  interwoven  itself  with 
the  entire  framework  of  human  society,  and  ramified  into 
all  the  relations  of  human  life.  By  its  agency,  nations  have 
been  revolutionized,  and  empires  have  been  overthrown.  It 
has  formed  a mighty  element  in  all  the  changes  which  have 
marked  the  history  of  man. 

A second  ground  of  probability  that  God  would  make  a 
verbal  revelation,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  in  all  ages  men 
have  entertained  a belief  in  the  possibility  and  reality  of 
intercourse  between  God  and  men. 

So  prevalent  and  pervading  has  been  this  belief,  that  the 


42 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES- 


wisest  and  holiest  men  have  spoken  in  the  name  of  God. 
Minos,  Zoroaster,  Confucius,  IS'uma,  Mohammed,  profess  to 
have  received  their  doctrine  direct  from  God.  The  sacred 
persons  of  all  nations,  from  the  Druids  to  the  Pope,  refer 
back  to  his  inspirations.  From  this  source,  the  Sibylline 
Oracles,  the  responses  at  Delphi,  the  sacred  books  of  all  na- 
tions, alike  claim  to  proceed.  Socrates  and  Plato,  Seneca 
and  Cicero,  tell  us  that  no  man  was  ever  truly  great  without 
the  inspiration  of  God.  Poets  and  orators  have  in  all  ages 
invoked  this  inspiration,  not  as  a mere  rhetorical  flourish  of 
trumpets  on  entering  upon  their  work,  but  because  they  be- 
lieved in  it,  and  longed  to  be  inspired.  Indeed,  as  Cicero 
remarks  in  the  opening  sentence  of  his  BivinaMone^'^'' 

“It  is  the  ancient  opinion,  derived  even  from  heroic  times 
and  established  by  common  consent  of  the  Roman  people, 
and  of  all  nations,”  that  such  intercourse  is  had  with  the 
invisible  powers. 

^^"or  need  we  wonder  at  this  universal  belief,  because  it 
is  perfectly  natural.  It  is  suggested  by  native  affinities  that 
crave  for  inspiration.  And  it  at  once  meets  and  answers 
tiiat  deep-seated  longing  of  the  human  heart  for  a more  per- 
fect knowledge  and  a more  conscious  assurance  of  the  favor 
of  God. 

And,  now,  what  shall  we  say  of  these  universal  beliefs 
and  sentiments?  Thoughtless  minds  may  disregard  them, 
but  a true  philosophy  of  human  nature  must  take  account 
of  them.  As  Spencer  justly  remarks,  “ Beliefs  tliat  are  per- 
ennial and  universal  have  some  foundation,  and  some 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


43 


amount  of  verity.”  It  is  absurd  for  Christians  to  cleii}^  that 
there  was  some  divine  inspiration  given  to  the  prophets  and 
teachers  of  the  heathen  world.  Do  not  the  Scriptures  con- 
cede some  measure  of  inspiration  to  all  pure  and  noble 
minds?  Do  not  they  teach  “There  is  a spirit  in  man,  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him  understanding  ? ” 
Is  not  Christ  the  true  light  which  lighteneth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world  ? ‘‘  God  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 

manners,”  with  a variegated  wisdom  has  spoken 

to  men,  sometimes  by  the  voice  of  Pagan  philosophers, 
sometimes  by  the  voice  of  Hebrew  prophets,  and  in  these 
last  days,  “by  his  own  Son.”  The  light  of  philosophy  was, 
it  is  true,  a torch  which  flung  a faint  gleam  here  and  there 
into  the  dusky  recesses  of  a mighty  cavern,  but  it  was  a 
“true  light.”  Christianity  is  the  sun  itself  pouring  its 
sevenfold  illumination  on  a world  rolling  into  light. 

Why,  then,  should  men  be  unwilling  to  believe  that 
God  has  spoken  to  us  through  pure,  anointed  souls,  in  hu- 
man words, — spoken  to  us  by  his  Son,  whom,  as  Carlyle 
says,  “all  men  who  will  but  look  on  Him  instinctively  re- 
gard as  divine?'’’  Where  is  the  unreasonableness  and  im- 
probability of  this  presumption  that  God  has  spoken  ? WI13" 

may  He  not  use  a phonetic  sign  just  as  well  as  a natural 
symbol  ? Why  may  He  not  reveal  himself  through  a human 
conception  uttered  in  human  language,  as  well  as  through 
an  organic  form  or  a system  of  organic  forms?  Can  He  not 
accompany  a human  messenger  with  such  divine  attestations 
and  credentials  as  shall  constrain  men  to  say,  “ Master!  we 


44 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


know  thou  art  a Teacher  sent  from  God!”  just  as  easily  as 
He  can  make  the  heavenly  oi’bs  sing  in  the  hearing  of  even 
Thomas  Paine,  “The  hand  that  made  us  is  divine?”  If 
God  exercises  a ceaseless  providence  in  directing  the  affairs 
of  the  material  universe,  why  may  He  not  exercise  the  same 
providence  over  the  moral  interests  of  human  society,  and 
interpose  in  the  way  of  Christianity  to  deliver  men  from 
sin,  and  raise  mankind  to  a higher,  purer,  and  nobler  form 
of  life?  If,  in  His  infinite  beneficence,  He  opens  his  hand 
and  satisfieth  the  desire  of  every  living  thing,  why  may  He 
not  also  open  His  heart  to  us,  and  in  that  look  of  compas- 
sion, that  tone  of  tenderness,  that  touch  of  pity,  that  minis- 
try of  love,  that  death  of  self-sacrifice,  which  we  see  in 
Christ,  satisfy  the  longings  of  our  deathless  souls?  Nay, 
from  all  the  heathen  knew  of  the  character  of  God,  from 
all  they  had  conceived  of  His  regard  for  morality,  from  all 
they  knew  of  His  benevolence,  might  they  not  hope  for  and 
expect  a higher  manifestation  of  God  to  redeem  and  save? 
So  Plato  reasoned,  and  so  he  hoped. 

Now,  Christianity  grounds  itself  upon  all  these  facts  of 
human  consciousness.  It  proceeds  along  all  these  lines  of 
instinctive  longing  and  beliefs.  It  claims  to  be  the  consum- 
mation and  the  crown  of  all  human  aspirations  and  hopes. 
It  presents  us,  in  the  Scriptures,  with  a history  of  super- 
natural interposition, — direct  interpositions  on  the  part  of 
God  to  restore  our  race  to  moral  order,  to  purity,  and  to 
peace.  And  after  ages  of  preparation,  in  the  fullness  of 
time,  a supernatural  personage  appears,  called  the  Son  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


45 


God,  who  is  so  full  and  adequate  a manifestation  of  the  in- 
visible God  that  He  could  say,  and  did  say,  “He  that  hath 
seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.” 

With  a loving  regard  for  Socrates  and  Plato  and  Confu- 
cius as  in  some  sense  the  prophets  of  God  in  heathen  lands, 
loyal,  as  we  hope,  to  all  truth  wherever  it  is  found  as  God’s 
truth,  we  still  claim  that  Christ  is,  par  excellence,  the  great 
Teacher  of  the  world,  and  that  the  Bible  is  sui  generis,  pecu- 
liarly, uniquely,  God’s  revelation  to  man.  It  is  distinguished 
clearly  from  all  other  sacred  books. 

1.  It  is  preeminently  historical,  while  all  other  sacred 
books  are  poetic,  legendary,  and  mythical.  They  make  no 
claim  to  be  historical.  The  Vedas,  the  sacred  books  of  the 
Brahmins,  are  collections  of  hymns.  Zend-Avesta,  the  sacred 
book  of  the  Zoroastrians,  is  mainly  of  the  same  character; 
and  the  Tripitaka,  the  sacred  book  of  the  Buddhists,  is  a 
code  of  morality,  and  a system  of  metaphysics.  They  offer 
no  points  for  historic  criticism,  and  present  no  opportunity^ 
of  subjecting  them  to  the  tests  by  which  an  historical  relig- 
ion is  tested.  Whereas  the  Old  and  ISTew  Testament  offer 
us  a scheme  of  doctrine  bound  up  with  facts  of  history, 
which  depends  absolutely  upon  them,  which  is  null  and  void 
without  them. 

Christianity  offers  us  a volume,  not  written  by  one  man, 
but  by  at  least  thirty  men  in  different  stations  of  life.  It 
numbers  among  its  authors  the  man  who  wore  a crown,  and 
the  man  who  threw  a net;  the  carpenter,  the  tax-gatherer^ 
the  physician ; the  Persian  prime  minister,  and  Csesai’s  fet- 


46 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


tered  slave.  It  was  not  written  at  one  time,  but  daring  a 
period  of  more  than  two  thousand  years.  It  was  not  writ- 
ten in  one  place,  but  in  widely  different  places, — some  por- 
tions of  it  under  the  shadows  of  the  Pyramids,  others  on  the 
banks  of  the  Euphrates;  some  in  the  isle  of  Patmos,  and 
others  in  the  Mamartine  dungeon.  There  is  a wonderful 
unity  in  this  volume;  it  is  our  best  historical  authority;  it  is 
full  of  allusions  to  the  manners,  customs,  and  events  of  his- 
tory peculiar  to  the  Chaldeans,  Assyrians,  Babylonians, 
Medes,  Persians,  Greeks,  and  Romans.  And  I am  bold  to 
affirm  that  it  has  never  been  proved  false  in  a single  histor- 
ical allusion.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  gradually  gathered 
around  it  a dense  cloud  of  witnesses,  from  the  ruins  of  ISTin- 
eveh  and  Babjdon,  and  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  from  the  slabs 
and  bas-reliefs  of  Sennacherib,  and  the  tombs  and  mon- 
uments of  the  Pharoahs,  from  newly  discovered  manuscripts, 
gems,  medals,  and  coins,  which  ail  confirm,  in  a striking 
manner,  its  historic  notices. 

2.  It  exhibits  a supernatural  knowledge,  that  is,  it  fore- 
tells the  future  history  of  persons,  cities,  races,  and  nations, 
and  continually  lays  itself  open  to  detection  if  its  predic- 
tions are  found  false. 

3.  It  asserts  that  there  has  been  supernatural  interpo- 
sition, on  the  part  of  God,  in  the  history  of  our  race,  the 
truth  of  which  depends  mainly  upon  the  establishment  of 
the  two  previous  points. 

I shall  discuss  these  three  points,  in  their  order,  in  sub- 
sequent lectures. 


LECTURE  III. 


That  Tvliich  was  from  the  heginning^  which  we  have  heard ^ which  we 
have  seen  with  our  eyeSj  which  we  have  looked  upon^  and  our  hands 
have  handled^  of  the  Word  of  life ; 

That  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you^  that  ye  also 
may  have  fellowship  with  us ; and  truly  our fellowship  is  with  the  Father^ 
and  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. — i John  i.  1,3. 

If  it  were  sirnplj-  demanded  of  me  that  I should  offer 
my  personal  reasons  for  being  a Christian,  I would  promptly 
answer,  Tiie  deepest  ground  of  my  personal  faith  in  Christ 
and  Christianity  is  my  own  religious  consciousness. 

We  have  been  reading  the  Bible  these  many  years,  an^l 
we  do  not  tire  of  it  as  we  do  of  other  books.  In  our  mental 
progress  we  have  left  many  books  behind,  but  we  feel  that 
the  Bible  is  always  in  advance  of  us.  Every  year,  and  in- 
deed every  day,  we  discover  in  it  new  excellencies,  and  it 
discloses  to  our  mind  profounder  truths.  We  have  striven 
to  read  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  with  an  open  eye  and 
an  impartial  mind,  and  in  spite  of  many  obscurities,  we  can 
not  help  believing  them  to  be  true.  We  do  not  understand 
everything  in  the  Bible,  any  more  than  we  understand 
everything  in  nature,  but  what  we  do  understand  commends 
itself  to  our  reason,  our  conscience,  and  our  heart.  There 


48 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


is  a tone  of  downright  sincerity  and  honesty  in  all  its  utter- 
ances, and  an  inimitable  air  of  truthfulness  pervading  all  its 
teachings,  so  that  if  it  is  not  true,  our  nature  deceives  us, 
and  we  have  no  criterion  of  truth. 

As  we  read  the  letters  of  Paul  we  are  impressed  with 
his  candor,  his  magnanimity,  his  noble  charity;  we  feel  that 
his  loving,  burning  words  convince  us  of  his  integrity,  and 
we  cannot  but  believe  what  he  says.  We  read  the  sayings 
of  Christ,  and  we  feel  that  his  doctrine  is  too  pure  and  ele- 
vated to  be  a human  invention ; his  morality,  too  unselfish 
and  noble  to  be  the  product  of  an  Impostor;  and  his  life, 
too  singular  and  inimitable  to  be  less  than  Divine.  The 
appeal  to  our  religious  consciousness  is  so  profound  and 
resistless  that  we  cannot  believe  the  Gospel  to  be  false.  As 
we  read  we  are  often  brought  to  a sudden  pause,  and  by  an 
irresistible  impulse  we  are  led  to  exclaim,  “Lo,  God  is 
here!”  Gentle  presences,  as  of  mercy,  are  peering  through 
the  lines.  We  feel  the  pulsations  of  a living  spirit  beneath 
the  outward  form  of  words.  It  is  as  though  the  Invisible 
had  whispered  in  the  deepest  depths  of  our  nature,  “I  have 
found  thee  and  thou  mayest  not  escape  I ” A preternatural 
finger  has  touched  our  heart,  and  it  quivers  with  rapture  and 
with  awe.  A voice  from  within  responds  to  the  voice  from 
without,  and  the  conviction  is  instant  and  irresistible, 
‘‘  These  are  the  words  of  God!  ” 

Thus  the  Bible  speaks  directly  to  the  heart.  It  wakes 
up  the  divine  intuitions  of  the  soul.  It  meets  and  answers 
the  deepest  longings,  wants,  sufterings,  hopes,  and  fears  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


49 


man.  It  answers  and  it  exceeds  them  all.  It  awakens  new 
aspirations  and  new;  hopes.  It  furnishes  new  ideals  of 
goodness,  of  purity,  of  charity,  of  endurance,  and  self- 
sacrifice,  of  which  we  had  not  felt  the  inspiration  before. 
And  we  are  constrained  to  fall  upon  our  knees  and  implore 
strength  from  on  high,  that  we  may  be  enabled  to  actualize 
them  in  our  lives.  This  is  the  might  and  the  majesty  of 
self -attestation.  This  is  the  evidence  which  is  felt  by  the 
educated  and  the  uneducated  alike.  The  man  who  has 
studied  the  historical  evidences,  and  the  man  who  knows 
nothing  about  them,  are  here  as  one.  As  Carlyle  has  justly 
said,  “In  the  poorest  cottage  is  one  Book  wherein  for  several 
thousands  of  years  the  spirit  of  man  has  found  light  and 
nourishment,  found  an  interpreting  response  to  whatever  is 
deepest  and  divinest  in  him.  Wherein  still  to  this  day,  for  the 
ej"e  that  will  look  well,  the  mystery  of  existence  is  revealed 
and  propheticall}^  emblemed,  if  not  to  the  satisfying  of  the 
outward  sense,  yet  to  the  opening  of  the  inner  sense,  which 
is  the  grander  result.”  And  what  is  this  “openingof  the 
inner  sense”  of  which  Carlyle  speaks,  but  the  awakening  of 
the  Christian  consciousness? 

And,  now,  if  a sincere  and  hearty  faith  in  the  mission 
and  teaching  of  Christ  has  opened  in  man  this  inner  sense ; 
if  it  has  vitalized  his  conscience,  and  transformed  his  char- 
acter; if  it  has  led  him  beyond  the  outer  crust  of  sensible 
phenomena  into  the  invisible  sphere  of  eternal  realities ; if 
it  has  disarmed  the  power  of  temptation,  and  strengthened 

him  in  the  performance  of  duty;  if  it  has  been  his  solace  in 
E 


so 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


affliction  and  bereavement;  if  it  has  given  him  nobler  views 
of  life,  and  transformed  death  into  one  of  God’s  angels;  if 
it  has  been  the  inspiration  of  his  noblest  deeds,  and  made 
self-denial  and  sacrifice  for  the  good  of  others  a i-eal  joy, 
then  he  has  within  himself  the  best  and  surest  evidence  of 
its  truth.  This  inherent  power  and  life  of  Christianity  is 
for  him  its  self-attesting  evidence.  It  is  real  proof.  It 
touches  the  soul.  It  comes  home  to  his  purest  thoughts  and 
deepest  feelings.  It  harmonizes  with  everything  deepest  and 
divinest  in  him.  And  it  inspires  him  with  the  conviction 
that  it  is  Bimne, 

Therefore  we  do  not  hesitate  in  affirming  that  the 
deepest  and  strongest  demonstration  of  the  divinity  of  Chris- 
tianity must  rest  upon  the  living  and  intuitive  syllogism  of  the 
heart,  (John  vii.  17.  Rom.  i.  13.  1 Cor.  ii.  4,  5,  10.  2 Cor. 
iv.  6,  13.)  We  are  quite  prepared  to  endorse  the  remarks 
of  Carlyle  in  his  “Essay  on  Voltaire:”  “The  Christian 
Religion  has  a deeper  foundation  than  Books,  it  is  written 
in  the  purest  nature  of  man  in  mysterious,  ineffaceable  char- 
acters, to  which  Books,  and  [verbal]  Revelations,  and  au- 
thentic traditions  are  subsidiary, — the  light  whereby  that 
Divine  writing  may  be  read.” 

I anticipate  an  objection,  the  only  one,  in  fact,  which 
can  be  urged  against  this  mode  of  reasoning,  by  the  skeptical 
mind.  Yes!  you  answer,  the  evidence  from  your  own  sub- 
jective experiences  may  be  satisfactory  to  your  own  mind, 
but  inasmuch  as  I have  had  no  such  experience,  it  can  be  no 
evidence  to  me. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


51 


That  there  is  some  force  in  this  objection  I readily  grant, 
bnt  not  to  the  extent  that  yon  claim.  Yon  push  the  objec- 
tion to  an  extreme  which  is  not  only  unfair,  but  I think 
discourteous.  If  you  credit  us  with  ordinary  judgment,  and 
common  honesty,  then  our  testimony  to  the  wholesome  in- 
fluence of  an  earnest  faith  in  Christian  truth  upon  the  inward 
life,  should  be,  at  least,  as  good  evidence  for  you  as  our  tes- 
timony to  the  efficacy  of  any  tlierapeutic  agent  in  relieving 
our  physical  maladies;  especially  if  our  profession  of  inward 
moral  health  is  accompanied  by  the  outward  evidence  of 
moral  healthfulness  and  moral  power.  It  is  true  there  is  a 
Theory  of  Medicine,  as  well  as  a Practice  of  Medicine;  and 
that  theory  must  be  grounded  upon  some  knowledge  of 
Physiology,  and  of  the  modus  operandi  of  remedial  agents, 
but  after  all,  in  your  practice,  you  proceed  almost  exclusively 
on  the  generalizations  of  experience.  If  you  are  a good 
physician,  you  are  an  Empiricist  in  the  best  sense  of  that 
much  abused  word.  In  ten  thousand  cases  quinia  has  been 
found  an  antiperiodic  tonic;  in  ten  thousand  cases  the  belief 
of  Christian  truth  has  been  found  an  excellent  moral  tonic, 
and  a wonderful  alterative  also.  The  proof  is  just  as  valid 
in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  It  is  an  appeal  to  experience, 
that  is,  to  consciousness. 

But  I have  already  conceded  your  right  to  demand 
further  proof,  and  I have  no  desire  to  withdraw  that  conces- 
sion. Christianty  cheerfully  surrenders  itself  to  the  test  of 
experience.  It  reserves  to  itself  no  immunity,  and  asks  no 
exemption  from  the  established  principles  of  experimental 
induction. 


52 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Cbristianity  goes  yet  further.  It  professes  to  be  a spec- 
ial interposition  of  God  for  the  education  and  moral  disci- 
pline of  the  race;  a remedial  interposition  which  aims  to 
deliver  the  race  from  the  power  of  evil,  and  lift  humanity 
to  a higher  and  nobler  form  of  life.  It  claims  that  this  in- 
terposition was  not  a sudden  but  a gradual  movement  in 
history,  beginning,  in  fact,  with  the  history  of  our  race,  and 
continued  through  the  ages,  and  like  all  the  works  of  God  a 
progressive  evolution.  It  is  therefore  predicated  upon  all  the 
facts  in  the  history  of  our  race,  and  especially  upon  those 
facts  of  history  which  sober  historians  like  ISHebuhr,  Bunsen, 
Arnold,  have  regarded  as  providential.  Thus  it  surrenders 
itself  not  only  to  the  test  of  experience,  but  it  bases  its  pre- 
tensions upon  the  facts  of  histoiy,  and  subjects  itself  to  all 
the  fair  and  legitimate  rules  of  Historic  Criticism.  That  is, 
it  not  only  offers  us  experimental  evidence,  but  also  probable 
or  moral  evidence. 

And  here  permit  me  to  remark  that  I employ  the  word 
‘‘probable  ” in  the  logical  sense,  to  denote  a kind  of  evidence, 
and  not  a degree  of  evidence.  In  logic,  the  designation 
“probable”  is  used  in  a technical  sense  quite  different  from 
its  usual  signification.  In  common  discourse  it  is  applied  to 
evidence  which  does  not  command  assent,  but  in  logic  it 
denotes  the  highest  kind  of  proof  which  the  nature  of  the 
subject  admits.  It  is  not  opposed  to  what  is  certain,  but  it 
is  opposed  to  mathematical  demonsti-ation.  It  does  not  say 
“lam  absolutely  certain,”  but  it  does  say  “I  am  morally 
certain.” 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


S3 


There  are  persons  who  demand  more,  as  a condition  of 
their  faith  in  Christianit}^,  than  moral  certainty.  They  say, 
in  an  affair  of  such  vast  moment,  wherein  our  present  and 
eternal  well-being  are  involved,  we  ought  to  have  mathe- 
matical, or  something  like  mathematical  demonstration. 
Surely  this  is  an  unreasonable  and  impossible  demand. 
Mathematics,  of  all  sciences,  has  the  least  content,  and  it  is 
the  most  certain  simply  because  it  is  the  most  abstract. 
When  applied  to  the  concrete  phenomena  of  nature  it  must 
derive  its  djtta  from  the  facts  of  experience.  If  these  facts 
are  misapprehended,  even  mathematical  reasoning  gives 
false  conclusions.  But  the  nature  of  the  problem  now  be- 
fore us  precludes  matliematical  proof.  Do  you  gentlemen 
who  are  studying  Law,  expect  to  determine  the  guilt  or  in- 
nocence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  by  calculus?  If  so,  you 
are  studying  the  wrong  text-books  and  attending  the  wrong 
lecture-room.  Instead  of  Greenleaf  on  Evidence,  you 
ought  to  take  up  Price  or  De  Morgan  on  Differential  and 
Integral  Calculus.  Do  you  physicians  expect  to  diagnose 
the  nature  of  mental  diseases,  and  determine  the  fitness  of 
any  remedies  by  Equations?  I fancy  you  working  out  the 
problem  beside  the  couch  of  your  patient  while  he  peers 
quizzically  out  of  the  blankets,  and  wonders  which  is  the 
fittest  candidate  for  the  lunatic  asylum.  Gentlemen,  be  as 
reasonable  in  your  demands  upon  Christianity  as  jmu  are  in 
other  matters  of  human  interest.  Probability  is  for  you  the 
very  guide  of  life.  In  matters  of  the  highest  concern;  in 
matters  affecting  your  business,  your  character,  your  health, 


54 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


your  happiness,  and  the  health  and  happiness  of  all  who  are 
dear  to  you;  in  questions  of  life  or  death,  you  are,  and  must 
he,  guided  by  probable,  that  is,  moral  evidence.  And  so 
also  in  the  questions  which  concern  your  soul,  your  moral 
life,  and  your  everlasting  destiny.  Suppose  you  cannot 
prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul  as  you  can  demonstrate 
that  “the  sum  of  three  angles  of  a triangle  is  equal  to  two 
right  angles,”  what  then  ? Will  you  turn  a deaf  ear  to  every 
other  kind  of  proof?  Will  you  despise  the  noble  aspirations 
of  your  own  deathless  mind,  and  live  and  die  like  the  brute? 
Suppose  you  cannot  prove  the  leading  facts  of  the  Saviour’s 
life,  and  the  leading  truths  of  His  ministry,  in  the  same  way 
that  you  demonstrate  that  “if  three  quantities  are  in  pro- 
portion, the  product  of  the  extremes  is  equal  to  the  square 
of  the  mean,”  what  then?  Will  you  deny  that  He  ever 
lived  upon  the  earth ; will  you  trample  under  foot  that 
teaching  which  Theodore  Parker  saj^s  “is  pure  as  the  light, 
sublime  as  heaven,  true  as  God ; ” and  will  you  reject  His 
proffered  help  and  grace  ? 

You  confess  you  need  more  light  on  questions  which 
touch  the  religious  nature  of  man,  and  underlie  the  religious 
history  of  humanity.  You  want  a better  understanding  of 
your  relations  with  God,  and  your  dut}’  towards  God.  If  it 
be  only  from  a feeling  of  curiosity,  you  want  to  know  some- 
thing about  that  invisible  world  of  real  being  which  under- 
lies the  world  of  phenomena;  for  as  Plato  says,  “He  was 
not  a bad  genealogist  who  said  that  Iris^  the  messenger  of 
heaven,  is  the  child  of  Thaumas  (wonder).”  You  have  an 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


55 


instinctive  and  resistless  longing  to  know  more  about  the 
future  life,  and  about  your  personal  interest  therein.  Well, 
here  is  a revelation  which  supplies  that  information ; here  is 
a revelation  from  that  invisible  world,  a revelation  which 
professes  to  be  from  God,  and  the  great  question  is,  Can  I 
rely  upon  it  ? Is  it  authentic  ? Is  it  really  divine  ? 

The  problem  is  now  fairly*  before  our  minds.  The 
question  whether  the  Christian  Eeligion  is  a divine  religion; 
whether  as  an  Economy  it  was  originated  by  God;  whether 
as  a Doctrine  it  was  taught  by  God,  resolves  itself  simply 
into  a question  of  historic  fact.  The  history  which  is  given 
in  the  Old  and  ^evv  Testament  is  almost  exclusively  a his- 
tory of  the  direct  and  supernatural  interposition  of  God  in 
the  affairs  of  men  for  the  irreligious  instruction,  and  espec- 
ially for  their  redemption  from  sin.  Have  we  reasonable 
evidence  that  it  is  an  authentic  and  credible  histoiy?  If 
the  history  is  true,  then  the  doctrine  is  necessarily  Divine. 

I shall  endeavor  to  review  the  evidence  in  strict  con- 
formity with  the  laws  of  modern  historic  criticism  as 
approved  bj^  our  best  historians.  They  consist  chiefly  of  the 
four  following  Canons,  which  I abridge  from  Rawlinson: 

1.  AVhen  the  record  which  we  possess  of  an  event  is  the 
writing  of  a contemporary  (supposing  that  he  is  a credible  wit- 
ness, and  had  means  of  observing  the  facts  to  which  he 
testifies)  the  fact  is  to  be  accepted,  as  possessing  the  first  or 
highest  degree  of  historical  credibility. 

2.  When  the  event  recorded  is  one  whicli  the  writer 
ma,y  be  reasonably  supposed  to  have  obtained  directly  from 


56 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


those  who  witnessed  it,  we  should  accept  it  as  credible  unless 
it  be  intrinsic<ally  improbable.  Such  evidence  possesses  the 
second  degree  of  historical  credibility. 

3.  When  the  event  i-ecorded  is  removed  considerably 
from  the  age  of  the  recorder  of  it,  and  thei;e  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  he  obtained  it  from  a contemporary  writing,  but 
the  probable  source  of  his  info»*mation  was  oral  tradition ; 
still,  if  the  event  be  one  of  great  importance,  and  of  public 
notoriety ; especially  if  it  be  one  which  afiected  the  national 
life,  and  continued  to  be  commemorated  by  some  religious 
festival,  then  it  has  a claim,  in  its  genei*al  outline  at  least, 
to  be  believed  as  probably  true. 

4.  When  the  traditions  or  records  of  one  race  are  cor- 
roborated by  the  traditions  or  records  of  another  distant  or 
hostile  race,  the  event  has  by  this  double  testimony  a higher 
amount  of  probability,  and  thoroughly  deserves  acceptance. 

A fifth  canon  has  been  oflered  by  Strauss  which  we  shall 
reject  as  arbitrary  and  unreasonable.  It  is  based  on  an  a 
priori  assumption  of  the  absolute  inviolability  of  the  chain 
of  finite  causation : and  demands  that  from  all  history  we 
shall  eliminate  the  supernatural,  the  miraculous. 

• We  shall  devote  a special  lecture,  at  the  end  of  the 
course,  to  the  discussion  of  “the  Naturalistic  Hypothesis.” 
At  present  we  assert,  first,  a miracle  is  not  a violation  of 
natural  law,  but  a subordination  of  the  order  of  nature  to 
higher  ^moral  ends;  secondly,  the  absolute  uniformity  of 
nature  is  not  an  a priori  intuition,  but  an  induction  from 
experience,  and  cannot  therefore  be  dogmatically  affirmed  as 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


57 


a law  governing  experience;  thirdly,  man  has  an  innate 
natural  faith  in  the  supernatural,  and  experience  and  human 
testimony  can  attest  to  us  the  occurrence  of  a supernatural 
event;  fourthly,  we  have  all  had  experience  of  events  which 
are  outside  the  chain  of  physical  causation,  and  know  from 
experience  that  there  are  such  things  as  ^fc/^-natural,  non- 
natural,  and  s^/^er-natural  occurrences.  If  yon  fire  a pistol 
into  the  brain  of  your  fellow-man  and  thus  terminate  his 
existence,  you  do  an  l^7^-natural  deed.  If  the  chemist  freezes 
water  in  a red-hot  crucible,  he  performs  a 7^o^^-natural  act, 
that  is,  he  does  what  nature  in  her  orderly,  regular,  natural 
working  never  does.  If,  in  the  exercise  of  my  free  spirit- 
power,  I make  an  alternative  choice,  and  subordinate  my 
natural  impulses  to  the  law  of  my  conscience,  I perform  a 
«wp^7'-natural  act.  If  the  Deity  be  an  intelligent,  free  per- 
sonality, He  may  do  all  this,  and  infinitely  more.  In  the 
exercise  of  His  omnipotence.  He  may  subordinate  nature  to 
special  moral  ends,  and  that  is  a miracle. 

The  position  that  we  now  seek  to  establish  is,  that  we 
have  the  highest  moral  certainty  that  the  history  in  the  Old 
and  ^^'ew  Testament  is  authentic  and  credible. 

Now,  while  we  are  prepared  to  admit  tliat  facts  of  per- 
sonal experience  seem  to  have  a greater  degree  of  certitude 
tlian  facts  of  history,  yet  there  are  many  facts  of  history,  of 
which  we  ai*e  as  morall}"  certain  as  we  can  be  of  any  facts 
wliich  have  come  under  our  own  personal  observation.  For 
example,  that  Hannibal  led  an  army  across  the  Alps;  that 
Julius  Caesar  was  murdered  in  the  senate-house;  that  the 


58 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Romans  invaded  and  for  a season  held  possession  of  Great 
Britain;  that  M:)ses  was  the  lawgiver  of  the  Hebrew  race; 
that  Christ  was  crucified  in  Judea,  are  facts  of  which  I am 
as  morally  certain  as  that  I saw  Tliackombau,  the  king  of 
Fejee,  in  1854.  It  is  possible  that  Tliackombau  might  have 
treated  me,  as  Mr.  Dickens  treated  a party  of  Americans  on 
his  first  visit  to  our  country  when  he  sent  his  servant  to  im- 
personate his  real  self,  but  it  is  impossible  that  the  entire 
Roman  public,  and  the  whole  body  of  historians  could  have 
been  deceived  as  to  the  assassination  of  Julius  Caesar.  The 
little  speech  which  Shakspeare  puts  into  the  mouth  of  An- 
tonins, nobody  quotes  as  history,  but  that  the  people  insisted 
on  burning  his  body  in  the  Forum,  and  erected  a chapel 
over  the  spot,  which  was  afterwards  converted  into  a temple, 
cannot  be  doubted. 

Let  us  take  as  an  example  of  the  histoi-ic  proof,  and  at 
the  same  time  as  an  illustration  of  the  line  of  argument,  the 
fact  that  the  Romans  once  held  possession  of  Great  Britain. 
The  proof  of  this  fact  may  be  made  up  by  a variet}^  of  con- 
curring lines  of  evidence, — 

1.  Traditions  still  retained  among  the  descendants  of 
the  ancient  Britains  existing  in  Wales  and  Anglesey; 

2.  The  testimony  of  contemporaneous  historians,  espec- 
ially of  Suetonius  and  Tacitus; 

3.  The  remains  of  Roman  buildings,  camps,  and  walls, 
scattered  around  the  country;  as,  for  example,  Richborough 
Castle  in  Kent;  the  archway  at  Lincoln,  known  as  the 
‘‘ Newport  Gate ; ” the  great  stone  wall  built  by  Hadrian, 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


59 


extending  from  the  Solway  to  the  mouth  of  the  Tyne,  and 
separating  Columbia  from  Britannia;  and  the  remains  of 
tlie  Roman  wall  and  buildings  which  formed  the  principal 
station  of  the  Roman  army  in  Britain,  and  which  are  still  to 
be  seen  at  York; 

4.  Roman  coins  of  Tiberius,  Augustus,  Nero,  and  other 
Roman  Emperors,  which  are  being  constantly  found  in  the 
soil; 

5.  Roman  inscriptions  in  every  part  of  the  country. 

Now,  here  are  five  independent  lines  of  proof,  an}"  one 

of  which  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  fact  that  the  Romans  once 
held  possession  of  Great  Britain,  but  when  taken  all  together, 
they  constitute  a proof  equal  in  force  to  a demonstration  in 
mathematics. 

This,  then,  is  an  example  of  the  line  of  proof,  and  the 
nature  of  the  evidence, which  we  shall  present  of  the  historic 
accuracy  of  the  Bible.  We  shall  point  to  the  same  concur- 
rent lines  of  proof  to  sustain  the  leading  facts  of  the  Bible, 
that  can  be  presented  to  prove  that  the  Romans  conquered 
and  held  possession  of  Britain. 

1.  We  shall  point  to  the  existence  of  a people  called 
the  Jews,  scattered  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  who  for 
3360  years  have  celebrated  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  to 
commemorate  their  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt; 
and  a sect  called  the  Christians  who  for  1800  years  have  ob- 
served good  Friday  and  Easter  Sunday,  in  commemoration 
of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

2.  We  shall  appeal  to  concurrent  traditions  found 


6o 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


amon^  all  nations;  as,  for  example,  traditions  concernino- 
the  Creation,  and  the  [N'oachian  deluge. 

3.  We  shall  refer  to  the  testimony  of  independent  his- 
torians who  lived  in  Egypt,  in  Babylon,  in  Phoenicia,  in 
Rome,  and  in  Judea. 

4.  We  shall  appeal  to  the  remains  of  ancient  cities, 
mentioned  in  Scripture  with  great  minuteness  and  particu- 
larity, at  Kineveh,  Babylon,  Tadrnor,  Jerusalem,  and  Tyre. 

5.  We  shall  refer  to  existing  monuments,  inscriptions, 
coins,  and  signets,  which  have  been  found  in  the  Tombs  of 
the  Kings  of  Egypt,  and  amid  the  ruins  of  Nineveh  and 
Babylon. 

(5.  And,  finally,  we  shall  call  attention  to  the  discover- 
ies of  Modern  Science — especially.  Philology,  Ethnology, 
and  Geology — which  have  yielded  their  tj-ibute  of  evidence 
that  the  Bible  is  true. 

And,  now,  for  a clear  understanding  of  the  subject,  I 
had  better,  at  once,  rapidly  indicate  the  nature  and  sources 
of  our  materials  for  a comparison  of  sacred  and  profane 
history,  which,  if  now  carefully  noted  by  you,  will  greatly 
assist  you  in  our  future  inquiry. 

Of  Egyptian  history,  we  have  the  writings  of  Manetho, 
who  was  the  High  Priest  of  Heliopolis,  in  the  reign  of 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  about  304  B.  c. 

Of  Babylonian  history,  we  have  the  writings  of  Berosus^ 
a Chaldean  pi-iest,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  356-323  B.  c. 

Of  Phcenician  history,  we  have  the  writings  of  Menander 
and  Dia.%  native  Phoenicians. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES.  ’ 6 1 

Of  Syrian  history,  we  have  the  universal  history  of 
Nicolaus  of  Damascus,  who  lived  about  the  time  of  Alexan- 
der, and  drew  the  material  of  his  work  from  native  sources. 

Of  these  writers,  we  have  not  complete  manuscripts. 
What  we  now  possess  are  fragments  quoted  by  other  and 
later  writers,  chiefly  Josephus  and  Eusebius.  These  frag- 
ments have  been  collected  by  Max  Muller,  and  are  accepted 
and  defended  as  unquestionably  genuine  by  the  philosophic 
historian  Xiebuhr,  and  the  learned  Egyptologist  Bunsen.  In 
addition  to  these  we  have  the  great  work  of  Herodotus,  the 
father  of  history.  The  authorities  in  Koman  histoiy  are 
familiar  to  you  all.  But  in  addition  to  all  these,  and  of 
more  value  than  all  these,  at  least  so  far  as  Old  Testament 
history  is  concerned,  we  possess,  as  the  result  of  late  explo- 
rations in  Egypt,  Nineveh,  Persopolis,  and  Babylon,  con- 
temporaneous records,  made  by  order  of  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  Monarchs;  and  a large  amount  of  conflrmatory 
proof  from  the  Monuments,  Temples,  and  Tombs  of  the 
Kings  of  Egypt,  and  from  the  Catacombs  at  Rome. 

In  regard  to  these  inscriptions  on  the  monuments  and 
tombs  in  Eg3"pt,  and  the  contemporaneous  records  made  by 
order  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Kings,  it  may  be 
necessary  to  furnish  a more  particular  account. 

It  was  long  suspected  that  the  hieroglyphical  inscriptions 
on  the  monumental  remains  of  Egypt  contained  records  of 
histoiy,  which,  could  they  be  deciphered,  would  be  of  the 
utmost  consequence  to  the  learned  world.  Great  were  the 
expectations  of  scholars  when  it  was  announced  that  a key 


62 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


had  been  found  by  which  the  learned  could  unlock  tlie 
wards,  and  enter  the  portals,  of  these  long  concealed  treas- 
ures. That  key  was  what  is  known  to  scholars  as  “ the 
Eosetta  stone.”  It  was  discovered  by  the  French  in  digging 
on  the  redoubt  of  tliefort  St.  Julian,  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Rosetta  branch  of  the  Nile;  and  was  surrendered  by  them, 
with  other  antiquities,  to  the  British  commander,  Lord 
Hutchinson,  after  their  signal  defeat  at  Alexandria,  on  the 
21st  of  March,  1800.  It  is  now  in  the  British  Museum.  On 
its  arrival  in  England  antiquarians  at  once  recognized  its 
value.  It  was  found  to  be  a decree  in  honor  of  Ptolemy 
Y.,  sculptured  195  b.  c.,  and  written  in  three  different  char- 
acters. One  Greek,  another  hieratic  or  sacred  characters, 
the  third  enchorial  or  common  characters.  The  most 
fortunate  circumstance  of  all  was  that  the  last  sentence  of 
the  Greek,  orders  that  the  decree  shall  also  be  inscribed  in 
hieroglyphic,  enchorial,  and  Greek.  The  hopes  of  European 
scholars  have  been  realized,  and  a band  of  eminent  linguists 
and  antiquarians,  as  Young,  Champollion,  Rosellini,  Lep- 
sius,  Bunsen,  Wilkinson,  have  been  able  to  decipher  the  old 
Egyptian,  and  open  to  us  the  treasures  of  Egyptian  histoiy. 
Egyptology  has  now  become  a science;  and  the  grand 
works  of  Bunsen,  Wilkinson,  and  Thompson  have  made 
ancient  Egypt  almost  as  familiar  to  us  as  ancient  Greece. 

Another  source  of  information  is  found  in  the  paintings 
and  sculpture  with  which  the  ancient  Egyptians  decorated 
the  walls  of  their  temples  and  tombs,  in  forms  and  colors 
which  have  survived  the  wastes  of  time.  These  paintings  are 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


63 


real  illustrations  of  events  which  transpired  during  the  reign 
of  the  successive  Kings  of  Eg}^pt, sometimes  accompanied  with 
hieroglyphical  inscriptions.  They  may  be  well  compared  to 
an  edition  of  Harper’s  Weekly,  in  which  historical  events 
are  illustrated  by  engravings,  and  described  in  letter-press. 
They  bore  exactly  the  same  relation  to  the  histoiy  of  those 
times,  that  an  illustrated  newspaper  bears  to  our  times;  only 
they  are  more  enduring. 

The  British  government  has  been  at  an  enormous  ex- 
pense to  recover  these  ancient  paintings  and  monuments; 
and  t<s»-day,  if  you  visit  the  Egyptian  rooms  of  the  Britisli 
Museum,  you  will  be  delighted  and  surprised  to  see  that 
ancient  Egypt  has  had  a resurrection.  The  tombs  have 
given  up  their  dead,  and  some  of  the  Pharaohs  are  lying  in 
state  in  London,  with  the  records  of  their  deeds  and  their 
times  surrounding  them. 

We  shall  see  as  vve  proceed,  how  the  first  chapter  in  Ex- 
odus receives  a striking  confirmation  from  the  paintings  in 
the  tombs  below  the  temple  of  Karnak;  and  how  many  of 
the  accounts  of  the  relations  between  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  the  kings  of  Egypt  are  sustained.  This  discovery  gave 
a new  impulse  to  the  same  class  of  researches  amid  the  ruins 
of  Nineveh,  Babylon,  and  Persopolis.  A fortunate,  and  as 
I legard  it,  a providential  discovery  was  made  by  Colonel 
Rawlinson  of  what  is  now  known  as  “ the  great  Inscription 
of  Darius.”  On  the  western  frontier  of  ancient  Media,  on 
the  road  from  Babylon  to  the  southern  Ecbatana,  that  great 
thoroughfare  between  the  eastern  and  the  western  provinces 


64 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


of  ancient  Persia,  he  found  an  inscription  on  a percipitous 
rock,  1700  feet  high.  This  again  is  trilingual.  One  transcript 
is  in  the  ancient  Persian,  one  in  Babylonian,  and  one  in 
Scythic  or  Tartar  dialect.  “ The  Babylonian  column  of  this 
inscription,”  says  Layard,  ‘Ms  an  invaluable  key  to  the  va- 
rious branches  of  cuneiform  writing.”  And  now  the  bas- 
relief  on  the  walls  of  the  Palaces  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
which  have  been  entombed  for  2000  years,  have  been  de- 
ciphered by  Loftus,  Layard,  Dr.  Hinks,  and  Rawlinson. 
The  very  bricks  also  have  inscriptions  on  them.  Cylinders 
of  baked  clay  and  green  felspar,  which  no  doubt  were  the 
signets  of  the  Assyrian  kings,  are  found  covered  with  in- 
scriptions. Winged  bulls  are  Avritten  over  with  these  cunei- 
form or  arrow-headed  characters,  and  no  one  can  form  any 
conception  of  the  vastness,  the  voluminousness,  of  these  his- 
toric records,  until  he  has  stood  beneath  the  winged  bulls, 
and  looked  on  the  slabs  of  the  palace  of  Sennacherib, now  in 
the  British  Museum.  The  history  of  the  live  great  monarch- 
ies of  the  ancient  world  has  been  discovered  during  the  last 
twenty  years,  and  the  volumes  of  EaAvlinson  are  an  invalu- 
able contribution  to  the  truth  of  Old  Testament  history. 
These  endless  inscriptions  are  found  to  be  the  records  of  the 
acts  and  decrees  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  kings,  and 
as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  they  are  a wonderful  confirmation 
of  the  account  which  is  given  of  these  kings  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures. 

The  confirmations  of  the  historic  accuracy  of  the  Bible 
are  increasing  every  year.  It  is  in  our  remembrance  that 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


6s 


skeptical  men  used  to  say,  Where  is  Nineveh?  Where  is 
Babylon?  These  places  never  existed.  Sennacherib,  Shal- 
maneser, Tiglath-Pileser,  were  as  mythical  as  Agamemnon, 
Hector,  and  Achilles.  Your  Bible  is  as  legendary  as  Homer. 
We  hear  no  more  of  that  banter  now.  All  men  have  come 
to  regard  the  Old  Testament  as  the  oldest,  the  most  reliable, 

and  the  most  authentic  history. 

F 


LECTURE  IV. 


“ For  inquire^  I pray  thee^  of  the  former  age^  and  prepare  thyself  to 
the  search  of  their  fathers  ; Shall  not  they  teach  thee^  and  tell  thee^  and 
utter  'Words  out  of  their  heart  — ^Job  viii.  8,  lo. 

In  my  former  lectures,  I have  endeavored  to  concen- 
trate attention  on  the  fact  that  Christianity  has  this  peculi- 
arity in  contradistinction  from  all  other  forms  of  religion, 
— it  is  preeminently  an  hisiorical  religion.  Other  systems  of 
religion  are  almost  exclusively  ideal,  poetic,  mythical,  and 
legendary;  but  Christianity  is  based  upon  a connected  series 
of  actual,  historic  facts,  commencing  with  the  creation  of 
man,  and  continuing  to  the  present  hour. 

1 have  endeavored  to  show  that,  as  one  form  of  ^‘abso- 
lute religion,”  it  grounds  itself  upon  all  the  facts  of  human 
nature,  that  is,  upon  the  ideas  and  laws  of  human  reason, 
and  the  instincts,  aspirations,  and  wants  of  the  human  heart. 
I have  also  endeavored  to  show  that,  as  a form  of  “ personal 
religion,”  that  is,  a religion  of  one's  personal,  inner  life,  it 
grounds  itself  upon  the  religious  consciousness  of  each  indi- 
vidual Christian.  And,  finally,  as  an  “historical  religion,” 
it  is  based  upon  the  best  authenticated  facts  of  history.  It 
is  claimed  that  all  along  the  ages  there  has  appeared  on  the 
stage  of  history  a class  of  facts  which  cannot  be  reduced  to 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


67 


the  uniformities  of  natural  causation,  or  accounted  for 
ascribing  them  to  the  contrivance  and  prearrangement  of 
designing  men ; and  these  facts  vindicate  their  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  promdential^  and  have  been  regarded  as  pi*ovi- 
dential  by  the  most  philosophic  historians.  Commencing 
with  the  very  dawn  of  human  history,  we  see  a peculiar  and 
unique  order  of  events  arising,  whicli,  through  the  course  of 
ages,  acquires,  periodically,  new  significance  and  new  mo- 
mentum, until  it  culminates  in  the  foundation  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  and  tlie  diftusion  of  Christianity  in  every  part 
of  the  habitable  globe.  And  it  is  upon  these  peculiar,  prov- 
idential facts  that  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity  are 
founded ; so  that,  if  the  facts  are  found  to  be  authentic  and 
credible,  the  religion  must  be  accepted  as  divine. 

I now  propose  that  we  shall  study  these  facts,  scrutinize 
them  as  to  their  validity,  estimate  their  value,  and  try  to 
grasp  their  significance  and  import;  in  the  words  of  Bacon, 
“first  fairly  criticise,  and  then  honestly  interpret  the  facts.’' 

There  is  an  historical  sequence  and  a genetic  connection 
in  the  tissue  of  facts  to  be  considered,  {jand  therefore  it  is 
best  we  should  follow  the  chronological  order.  I shall 
therefore  divide  the  whole  sacred  histoiy  into  jive  periods: 

1.  From  the  Creation  of  Man  to  the  Death  of  Moses,  a 
period  of  2553  years ; 

2.  From  the  Death  of  Moses  to  the  Death  of  Solomon, 
a period  of  573  years; 

3.  From  the  Death  of  Solomon  to  the  Captivity  of  Ju- 
dah, a period  of  387  years; 


68 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


4.  From  the  Captivity  to  the  Keformation  under  Nehe- 
miah,  a period  of  184  years; 

5.  From  the  Birth  of  Christ  to  the  Establishment  of 
Christianity,  a period  of  63  years. 

I now  invite  your  attention  to  the  consideration  of  the 
first  period — that  intervening  between  the  Creation  of  Adam 
and  the  Death  of  Moses — the  record  of  which  is  contained 
in  the  Pentateuch,  or  “Five  Books  of  Moses.” 

1.  And,  first  as  to  the  record  itself.  Here  are  five 
Books  familiar  to  us  as  “ The  Five  Books  of  Moses.”  What 
do  we  know  of  the  history  of  these  books?  I do  not  mean. 
What  do  we  know  of  the  history  contained  in  the  books,  but 
of  the  history  of  the  books  themselves?  Here  they  are  now 
as  a part  of  our  English  Bible,  but  how  do  we  show  that 
they  have  been  extant  three  thousand  years  ? And  if  the}^ 
have  been  in  existence  for  3000  years,  what  evidence  have 
we  that  they  are  the  same  books  they  were  3000  years  ago  ? 
How  do  we  know  they  have  not  been  so  corrupted  or 
changed  as  to  lose  their  identity,  like  Sir  John  Cutler's  pair 
of  black  worsted  stockings,  which  his  maid  had  so  often 
darned  with  silk  that  they  had  become  a pair  of  silk  stock- 
ings ; in  other  words,  what  guarantee  have  we  for  the  integ- 
rity and  purity  of  the  text? 

This  certainly  is  an  important  question,  and  ought  to  be 
studied  by  Christians  at  least  In  attempting  an  answer,  we 
shall  commence  from  our  own  time,  and  traveling  upwards, 
see  if  we  can  trace  the  presence  of  the  Pentateuch.  To-day, 
then,  there  are  in  existence  a large  number  of  Hebrew 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


69 


synagpgue-rolls  written  on  skins  (and  this  you  are  aware 
is  the  form  of  almost  all  ancient  books),  and  private  MSS. 
on  parchment,  in  Germany,  Poland,  and  Spain.  Some  have 
been  found  in  Russia,  in  Malabar,  and  even  in  China.  An 
idea  of  the  number  of  these  MSS.  may  be  gathered  from  the 
fact,  that,  in  preparing  for  his  printed  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  Dr.  Kennicott  collated  490  Jewish  MSS.  of  the  Book 
of  Genesis  alone.  The  date  of  these  MSS.  is  ordinarily  given 
in  the  subscription.  Few  of  them  are  older  than  the  twelfth 
century.  The  subscription  on  the  MS.  Bible  in  the  Library  of 
the  University  of  Cambridge  (England)  fixes  its  date  at  856 
A.  D.  And  there  is  a Pentateuch-roll  which  Pinner  found 
at  Odessa,  which  was  written  in  the  year  580  A.  D.  This  is  ^ 
the  oldest  known  Hebrew  MS.  in  existence. 

There  are  also  Greek  MSS.,  translations  from  the  He- 
brew, which  are  still  older  than  any  of  the  Jewish  MSS. ; 
these  belong,  some  to  the  fifth,  and  some  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. Thej-e  is  one  in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Rome,  another 
in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Paris,  a valuable  one  in  the  Brit- 
ish Museum,  and  the  oldest  of  all  was  discovered  by  Tisch- 
endorf  at  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine,  Mount  Sinai,  in  ^ 
1844.  All  these  MSS.  are  based  upon  the  translation  made 
b}^  order  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  King  of  Egypt,  for  the 
Alexandrian  Library,  and  known  as  the  “ Septuagiiit”  or 
LJ^X. ; because  it  was  understood  that  seventy  persons  were 
employed  in  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  into  Greek. 
Josephus  relates  that  the  Hebrew  copy  which  was  sent  from 
Jerusalem  as  a present  to  Ptolemy,  was  written  in  letters  of 


70 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


gold  on  skins  of  admirable  thickness,  (xint.  xii.  2.  § ii.) 
I have  no  doubt  of  the  accurac}"  of  this  statement;  for  one 
of  the  handsomest  MS.  I ever  looked  upon  was  written  in 
letters  of  gold  on  purple  vellum.  This  translation,  called 
‘‘the  Septuagint,”  was  made  280  b.  c.  We  have  found  the 
Hebrew  Bible  in  existence  2100  years. 

Older  still,  there  was  a Samaritan  copy  of  the  Five 
Books  of  Moses  which  was  probably  made  when  Manasseh 
and  other  Jewish  priests  went  over  into  Samaria,  and  con- 
temporaneous with  the  building  of  a temple  on  Mount 
Gerizim,  409  B.  c.  This  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  quoted  by 
Eusebius,  Jerome,  Procopius,  and  others  ; and  copies  of  it 
were  secured  from  the  East  by  Archbishop  Ussher  in  the 
seventeenth  century. 

At  a still  remoter  period,  during  the  reign  of  Jehosha- 
phat,  King  of  Judah,  912  B.  c.,  Levites  were  appointed  to  go 
through  all  the  cities  of  Judah  to  instruct  the  people,  and 
they  carried  with  them  copies  of  the  Laws  of  Moses.  (2 
Chron.  xvii.  9.) 

And,  lastly,  we  tind  in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  is 
generally  believed  to  have  been  written  by  Joshua  or  one 
of  his  immediate  contemporaries,  that  Joshua  speaks  of 
“the  Book  of  the  Law,”  “the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,” 
as  a book  containing  “ all  that  Moses  commanded.”  Thus 
we  are  carried  up  to  1451  b.  c.,  that  is,  a few  years  subse- 
quent to  the  deatli  of  Moses. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a remarkable  book;  for  the  Penta- 
teuch was  originally  one  book,  and  the  division  into  five 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


71 


books,  or  rolls,  was  made  as  a mere  matter  of  convenience. 
Aside  from  its  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a revelation  from 
God,  it  has,  in  a literaiy  point  of  view,  an  interest  and  an 
importance  to  which  no  other  document  can  pretend.  If  it 
is  not  absolutely  the  oldest  book  in  the  world,  it  is  certainty 
the  oldest  historic  record  in  the  world  that  assumes  the  form 
of  a book.  There  are  some  papyrus-rolls  in  the  British 
Museum  which  were  written  about  the  same  time  that  the 
genealogies  of  the  Semitic  race  were  so  carefully  collected 
in  the  tents  of  the  Patriarchs.  But  these  papyrus-rolls  are 
of  no  service  to  the  historian.  It  is  said  there  are  fragments 
of  Chinese  litei*ature  which  in  their  present  form  date  back 
as  far  as  2200  B.  c.,  at  least  so  Colebroke  thinks.  But  these 
are  either  calendars  containing  astronomical  calculations,  or 
records  of  mere  local  interest.  Genesis,  on  the  contrary,  is 
rich  in  details  respecting  other  races  besides  the  Hebrew 
race. 

If  the  religious  books  of  other  nations  make  no  preten- 
sions to  vie  with  Genesis  in  antiquity,  in  all  other  respects 
they  are  immeasurably  inferior.  The  Mantras,  the  oldest 
portion  of  the  Yedas,  are,  it  would  seem,  as  old  as  the  four- 
teenth century  b.  c.  The  Zend-Avesta,  in  the  estimation  of 
competent  scholars,  is  of  a much  more  modern  date.  The 
oldest  of  the  Chinese  sacred  books,  the  Yih-King,  is  of  a 
venerable  antiquity,  but  the  writings  of  Confucius  are  not 
earlier  than  the  sixth  century  B.  c.  But  Genesis  is  unlike 
the  Veda,  which  is  a collection  of  hymns  ; unlike  the  Zend- 
Avesta,  a metaphj^sical  speculation  on  the  origin  of  all 


72 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


things  ; unlike  the  Yih-King,  which  is  a treatise  on  ethics. 
Genesis  is  a history^  and  it  is  a history  of  the  religious  de- 
velopment of  humanity  for  2500  years. 

The  Pentateuch  has  always  been  regarded  by  the  Jews 
as  a sacred  book,  and  the  text  was  carefully  pieserved  and 
scrupulously  respected.  Josephus  says  that  throughout  the 
ages  that  have  passed  no  one  ventured  to  add  to,  or  take 
away  from,  or  transpose,  aught  in  the  sacred  writings  ; and 
he  assures  us  that  the  Jews  would  suffer  any  torment,  and 
even  death  itself,  rather  than  change  a single  point  or  iota 
of  the  Scriptures.  Laws  were  prescribed  as  to  the  quality 
and  size  of  the  parchment  to  be  used,  and  the  amount  to  be 
written  on  each  page.  In  the  times  of  Ezra,  there  arose  a 
class  of  Jewish  critics  called  Masorites,  whose  especial  busi- 
ness. it  was  to  preserve  ^he  purity  of  the  sacred  text.  To 
this  end  they  counted  every  line,  word,  and  letter,  and  even 
went  so  far  as  to  ascertain  how  often  each  letter  of  the 
alphabet  occurred  in  the  Bible,  and  what  word  or  letter 
occupied  the  centre  of  the  whole  book.  At  the  end  of  each 
MS.  they  added  a note  giving  the  result  of  all  these  investi- 
gations. These  are  called  the  “ Masoritic  notes.”  So  mucli, 
then,  for  the  record  itself. 

2.  As  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Were  the 
five  books  ascribed  to  Moses  really  written  by  him?  We 
answer,  in  general,  the  voice  of  positive,  uniform,  and  an- 
cient tradition  ascribes  them  to  Moses,  and  it  is  upon  this 
kind  of  evidence  we  have  mainly  to  rest  in  all  classic  au- 
thorship. Few  books,  comparatively,  tell  us  by  whom  they 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


73 


were  written.  Neither  the  Commentaries  of  Caesar,  nor  the 
Annals  of  Tacitus,  nor  the  Hellenic  of  Xenophon,  nor  the 
Dialogues  of  Plato,  nor  the  Philosophical  and  Logical  works 
of  Aristotle,  nor  the  Lives  of  Plutarch,  nor,  at  least,  nine- 
tenths  of  the  remains  of  ancient  literature,  contain  any 
specihc  statement  showing  by  whom  they  were  written. 
The  only  evidence  applicable  to  such  cases,  and  with  which 
the  common  sense  of  mankind  has  been  universally  satis- 
fied, is  public  notoriety^  that  is,  traditions  transmitted  to  the 
successive  generations  of  men  by  their  predecessors,  and 
this  traditional  knowledge  confirmed  by  the  quotations  and 
allusions  of  other  authors.  It  has  therefore  come  to  be  a 
general  canon  of  historic  criticism,  that  books  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  product  of  the  persons  whose  names  the}"  bear 
unless  strong  reasons  can  be  presented  to  the  contrary.  The 
burden  of  proof,  at  an}^  rate,  devolves  upon  those  who  deny 
their  genuineness.  Take  a most  extreme  case  in  illustra- 
tion, the  Iliad  of  Homer.  Wiio  can  tell  us  anything  con- 
cerning Homer  himself?  Tliere  is  a difference  of  4G0  years 
in  the  eight  different  periods  which  have  been  assigned  as 
tlie  time  when  he  lived,  and  seven  different  cities  claim  tlie 
honor  of  being  his  birthplace.  There  is  no  such  uncertainty 
in  regard  to  Moses.  But  yet  the  universal  belief  in  all  ages 
has  been  that  Homer  was  the  author  of  the  Iliad,  and  you 
have  numerous  quotations  therefrom  in  many  subsequent 
writings;  for  example,  in  the  third  book  of  Plato’s  Repub- 
lic; and  Plato  lived  409  B.  c. 

It  is  needless  for  me  to  occupy  your  time  with  proof 


74 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


that  the  Jews  have  in  all  a^es  assigned  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  to  Moses.  In  nearly  every  succeeding  book  of 
the  Old  and  New  Tertament  it  is  quoted,  or  incidentally 
referred  to,  as  the  work  of  Moses.  Josephus,  in  his  ‘‘First 
Book  Against  Apion,”  says  explicitly:  “We  have  twenty- 
one  books  which  contain  the  records  of  all  past  times, 
which  are  justly  believed  to  be  Divine.  And  of  them,  five 
belong  to  Moses,  which  contain  his  Laws,  and  the  traditions 
of  the  origin  of  mankind,  till  his  death.  The  interval  of 

time  was  little  short  of  3000  years.” “It  is  become 

natural  to  all  Jews,  from  their  birth,  to  esteem  these  books 
as  containing  Divine  doctrines,  to  persist  in  them,  and,  if 
occasion  be,  to  die  for  them.” 

To  this  unanimous  voice  of  the  Jewish  nation  we  may 
add  the  testimony  of  numerous  heathen  writers,  as  Manetho 
of  Egypt,  Lysimachus  of  Alexandria,  Tacitus  the  Roman, 
Juvenal,  and  many  others,  who  ascribe  to  Moses  the  institu- 
tion of  that  code  of  laws  by  which  the  Hebrews  were  gov- 
erned and  distinguished  as  a nation,  and  most  of  them 
distinctly  recognize  the  fact  that  he  committed  them  to 
writing. 

These  authorities  cover  a space  of  time  extending  from 
the  time  of  Alexander  the  Glreat,  when  the  Greeks  began  to 
manifest  some  interest  in  Jewish  history,  to  the  time  of  the 
Emperor  Aurelian,  when  Jewish  literature  had  been  thor- 
oughly studied  by  the  learned  and  acute  Alexandrians. 

There  are  certain  objections  which  have  been  urged  by 
skeptics  against  the  authorship  of  Moses,  which,  though  of 
little  weight,  demand  a passing  notice. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


75 


1.  It  is  urged  by  Paine  that  these  books  cannot  have 
been  written  by  Moses,  because  they  are  written  in  the  third 
person.  It  is  always  said,  -‘the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,” 
not  “the  Lord  spake  untome,’’  “which,”  says  Paine,  “it 
should,  or  would  have  been,  had  Moses  really  been  the 
author.” 

This  objection  can  certainly  have  no  weight  with  edu- 
cated and  sensible  men,  for  this  is  the  stjTe  which  is  adopted 
by  the  most  eminent  of  the  ancient  historians,  Josephus, 
Xenophon,  and  Caesar.  Throughout  the  whole  of  Caesar’s 
Commentaries  we  read  of  Caesar  making  a speech,  Caesar 
crossing  the  Rhine,  Caesar  invading  Britain,  etc.,  but  every 
schoolboy  knows  that  this  is  not  to  be  urged,  for  a 
moment,  as  a serious  objection  to  the  universal  belief  of 
centuries  tliat  Caesar  wrote  these  Commentaries. 

2.  A second  objection  urged  by  Paine  is,  that  in  the 
last  chapter  we  have  an  account  of  the  deatli  of  Moses,  and, 
of  course,  a man  cannot  write  an  account  of  his  own  death 
and  burial. 

Xow,  that  this  last  chapter  is  an  addendum,  a supple- 
ment to  the  Book  of  Moses,  added  in  all  pi'obability  by 
Joshua,  and,  perhaps,  at  one  time  a part  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  is  I think  very  evident.  First,  because  we  are  told 
in  one  of  the  last  chapters  that  “when  Moses  had  made  an 
end  of  writing  the  words  of  the  law  until  it  was  fin- 
ished, he  handed  it  to  the  Levites  to  be  kept  in  the  side  of 
the  ark.”  This  was,  then,  the  natural  and  appropriate  con- 
clusion of  the  book.  Secondly,  the  close  connection  between 


76 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


this  supplementary  chapter,  and  the  commencement  of  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  is  so  obvious,  as  plainly  to  intimate  that  it 
was  written  by  him  as  an  addendum  to  the  books  of  Moses, 
or  else  transposed  by  subsequent  transcribers  from  the  early 
part  of  Joshua  as  naturally  belonging  to,  and  necessary  to 
furnish,  a complete  account  of  Moses,  the  great  prophet  of 
the  Jewish  church.  Thirdly  and  finally,  the  presence  of 
this  supplementary  chapter  is  no  more  a proof  that  the  rest 
of  the  books  were  not  written  b}^  Moses,  than  the  eighth 
book  of  Caesar  on  the  wars  in  Gaul,  being  supplemented  by 
some  unknown  hand,  is  a proof  that  Caesar  did  not  write  the 
other  seven.  Let  the  Pentateuch  be,  at  any  rate,  treated 
with  the  same  fairness  with  which  other  books  are  treated. 

3.  A third  objection  is  urged  by  Colenzo.  He  says  that 
the  Pentateuch  cannot  have  been  written  by  Moses,  because 
there  are  some  numerical  and  chronological  errors  in  the 
books. 

Now,  if  this  allegation  were  true,  it  might  prove  that 
Moses  was  a poor  arithmetician  or  an  unreliable  historian, 
but  it  certainly  would  not  prove  that  he  did  not  write  the 
history.  As  to  the  supposed  errors  themselves,  we  will  con- 
sider what  he  has  to  say  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
veracity  of  Moses,  or,  in  other  words,  the  authenticity  of  the 
Pentateuch.  We  will,  in  the  meantime,  grant  that  some  of 
the  figures  of  the  Pentateuch  are  now  wrong ; does  it  there- 
fore follow  that  the  original  figures  of  Moses  and  the  early 
manuscripts  were  wrong?  Every  scholar  knows  that  an- 
cient manuscripts  were  multiplied  by  transcription  with  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


77 


pen ; that  the  numerals  in  the  Hebrew  are  represented  by 
letters,  some  of  which  might  be  easily  mistaken  for  others ; 
and  that,  unless  we  indulge  in  the  absurd  idea  that  everj^ 
obscure  scribe  who  made  a new  MS.  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
by  a perpetual  miracle  preserved  from  making  a mistake, 
some  numerical  errors  may  have  naturally  arisen  in  subse- 
quent ages.  Such  mere  errors  in  transcription  Colenzo 
himself  admits  ought  not  to  be  permitted  in  our  minds  to 
encourage  an  unjust  suspicion  as  to  the  veracity  of  the  orig- 
inal Mosaic  compositors.  And  yet,  as  we  shall  see  in  our 
subsequent  inquiries,  these  apparent  numerical  discrepancies 
are  the  only  objections  Colenzo  has  to  urge  against  the  testi- 
mony of  universal  tradition  and  universal  history,  sacred 
and  profane,  heathen  and  Jewish,  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch.  The  presence  of  numerical  errors  can  never 
be  urged  by  an  honest  mind,  and  never  has  been  urged  by 
the  critical  or  philosophic  historian,  as  any  proof  that  a 
book  is  not  genuine,  or  that  it  is  not  the  product  of  the 
author  whose  name  It  bears.  Herodotus  tells  us  that  the 
army  of  Xerxes  numbered  one  million  seven  hundred  thou- 
sand men  (Book  vii.).  Xow,  I presume  every  scholar 
regards  this  as  a numerical  error.  And  yet  you  would 
account  the  man  as  very  unreasonable  who  should  urge  this 
as  a proof  that  Herodotus  did  not  write  the  history  which 
bears  his  name. 

These  objections  of  Paine  and  Colenzo  are  therefore  of 
no  weight  against  the  universal  voice  of  antiquity,  which, 
without  one  exception,  sustains  the  Mosaic  authorship. 


78 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


If,  then,  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateucli,  we  come  now  to 
discuss  our  second  question,  Is  his  history  an  authentic 
one?  Does  he  narrate  facts  ot  which  he  was  personally 
observant,  or  which  he  knew  were  true  on  the  best  and  most 
reliable  testimony ; or  does  he  deal  in  mere  fables  and 
myths  ? 

N^ow,  we  desire  to  be  explicitly  understood  at  this  point. 
We  shall  not  answer  this  question  after  the  manner  in  which 
it  is  usually  answered,  namely,  that  Moses  was  inspired  b}^ 
God  to  write,  and  therefore  all  he  wrote  must  be  true,  be- 
cause that  answer  carries  no  conviction  to  the  mind  of  the 
skeptic,  nor  even  to  the  sincere  doubter,  of  whom  I know 
there  are  many. 

We  shall  answer  this  question  in  the  same  manner  as  we 
should  were  it  proposed  in  relation  to  Caesar  or  Xenophon- 
or  Herodotus  of  ancient  times,  or  M acaulay  or  Bancroft  of 
modern  times.  Looking  at  the  matter  purely  as  one  of 
historic  criticism,  we  shall  endeavor  to  apply  the  same  rules 
of  judgment  to  what  is  called  sacred  history  as  we  would 
to  profane  history,  and  deal  with  Moses  as  we  do  with  every 
other  historian.  We  remarked  last  Sunday  that  it  is  a rule 
of  historic  criticism  that  the  genuineness  of  a book,  the 
established  fact  that  it  was  written  b}"  the  man  whose  name 
is  affixed  to  it,  carries  the  authenticity  of  the  narrative,  at 
least,  in  its  main  particulars. 

If  we  have  the  author's  name  attached,  we  have  some 
one  who  has  made  himself  responsible  to  the  world  for  the 
accuracy  of  the  narrative,  and  whose  character  foi*  veracity 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


79 


we  may  be  able  to  appreciate.  In  the  affairs  of  eveiy-day 
life  we  attach  little  value  to  a merely  anonymous  story  ; if 
the  author’s  name  is  given,  we  have  vastly  more  confidence; 
if  we  know  him  to  be  generally  a man  of  veracit}",  we  be- 
lieve without  hesitation.  This  remark  applies  with  increased 
foi’ce  to  written  history.  We  are  to  presume  that  when  a 
man  writes  a histor}^  for  the  public  and  for  posterity,  his 
design  is  to  narrate  facts.  He  ma}"  be  liable  to  error,  may 
be  misled  by  others,  but  as  a general  rule,  he  intended  to 
tell  the  truth,  and  we  are  bound  to  act  on  that  presumption 
unless  we  can  show  tliat  he  had  some  powerful  motive  to 
attempt  a deception.  We  argue  this  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  much  more  natural  and  easy  for  a man  to  tell  the  truth 
than  to  tell  a falsehood,  and  that  men  do,  indeed,  utter 
vastly  more  truth  than  falsehood.  We  can  conceive  of  no 
state  of  mind  more  unnatural  and  mean  than  that  which 
regards  with  universal  mistrust  and  skepticism  the  testimony 
of  other  men.  And  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  man 
who  is  everlastingly  questioning  the  veracity  of  others,  is 
judging  his  fellows  by  a rule  which  he  feels  is  applicable  to 
himself.  The  practice  of  the  coarse  and  vulgar  infidel  is  to 
pronounce  the  sacred  historian  a deceiver,  a liar  ; but  the 
intelligent  skeptic  is  ashamed  of  such  a course.  Strauss,  the 
great  skeptic  of  Germany,  disingenuously  and  honestly 
avers,  that  “Moses,  being  the  leader  of  the  Israelites  on 
their  departure  out  of  Egypt,  would  undoubtedly  give  a 
faithful  history  of  the  occurrences  unless  (which  is  not 
pretended)  he  designed  to  deceive.”  These  are  the  proper 


y 


8o  UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 

and  natural  inferences  which  Strauss  felt  must  flow  from 
the  admission  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
If  he  wrote  the  book,  it  must  be  accepted  as,  in  the  main, 
authentic  and  true. 

A plausible  falsehood,  we  remark  further,  is  a matter 
of  extreme  difficulty.  It  is  the  hardest  task  in  the  world 
to  tell  a lie  that  will  maintain  its  own  consistency  and  live. 
It  is  difficult,  nay  in  fact  impossible,  to  interpose  a series  of 
falsehoods  right  into  the  current  of  history,  without  there 
being  numberless  points  at  which  it  cannot  be  made  to  har- 
monize. Falsehood  can  never  quadrate  with  truth.  It  is 
much  easier  for  the  historian  to  tell  the  truth  than  to  perpe- 
trate a falsehood.  ' And  especially  when  the  historian  ad- 
dresses himself  to  the  masses  of  men  and  to  posterity,  there 
is  a solemnity  in  the  occasion  which  makes  him  feel  that  he 
must  aim  at  truth.  The  universal  presumption  of  our  race 
is,  that  history,  generally  speaking,  is  to  be  relied  upon  when 
it  bears  the  author’s  superscription. 

All  history,  sacred  and  profane,  all  tradition,  with  a 
unanimous  voice,  assert  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the 
five  books  which  bear  his  name.  The  general  presumption, 
then,  is  in  favor  of  their  being  authentic  history. 

2.  A second  canon  of  historic  criticism  is,  ‘‘When  the 
record  we  possess  is  the  writing  of  a contemporary  who  had 
the  means  of  observing  the  facts  to  which  he  testifies,  and 
is  a writer  upon  whose  integrity  we  have  good  reason  to  de- 
pend, then  the  record  is  to  be  regarded  as  possessing  the 
highest  degree  of  credibility.” 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


8l 


This  is  a law  of  historic  criticism  which  is  laid  down 
and  applied  to  all  history  by  such  philosophic  historians  as 
Niebuhr,  Muller  of  Germany,  Arnold  and  Lewis  of  En- 
gland. The  importance  of  this  canon  is  admitted  even  by 
the  German  infidel  Strauss.  “It  would,”  says  he,  “most 
unquestionably  be  an  argument  of  decisive  weight  in  favor 
of  the  credibility  of  Biblical  history,  could  it  indeed  be 
shown  that  it  was  written  by  eye-witnesses;”  and  again, 
“ Moses,  being  the  leader  of  the  Israelites  on  their  departure 
from  Egypt,  would  undoubtedly  give  a faithful  history  of 
the  occurrences  unless  he  designed  to  deceive.” 

Let  us  apply  these  two  rules  of  historic  criticism  to  the 
Pentateuch.  We  have  shown  beyond  the  possibility  of  suc- 
cessful contradiction  that  Moses  was  the  author.  We  have 
therefore  the  direct  testimony  of  a contemporary,  an  eye- 
witness of  the  facts  which  he  narrates,  an  actor  in  the  very 
events  he  records,  and  not  an  actor  only,  but  the  leader  in 
the  transactions  which  he  relates,  as  Caesar  was  of  the  events 
he  narrates  in  his  Commentaries.  We  have  also  here  the 
testimony  of  a writer  on  whose  integritj^  we  can  depend,  a 
writer  unquestionably  honest,  for  he  records  his  own  sins 
and  defects,  and  the  transgressions  and  sufferings  of  his  own 
people ; and  necessarily  honest,  for  he  writes  of  events  which 
were  publicly  known  to  all. 

In  relation,  therefore,  to  the  events  which  are  narrated 
in  four  of  these  books,  we  have  a work  which,  by  the  laws  of 
criticism  accepted  by  the  rationalists  of  Germany,  is,  for  his- 
toric purposes,  just  as  reliable  as,  and,  as  we  shall  afterwards 
G 


82 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


show,  more  reliable  than  Caesar’s  Commentaries,  Xenophon’s 
Anabasis,  Josephus’  Books  of  the  Wars,  or  Maxwell’s  Life 
of  Wellin<?ton,  all  written  by  contemporaries  and  eye-wit- 
nesses. We  have  here  the  autobiography  of  a great  man, 
living  in  the  midst  of  great  events,  the  head  of  a nation  at 
the  most  critical  period  in  its  history,  who  commits  to  writ- 
ing, as  they  occurred,  the  various  events  and  transactions  in 
which  he  was  engaged,  whenever  they  are  of  a national  or 
public  character.  There  is  not  a book  in  the  world  which 
has  a greater  claim  to  be  regarded  as  authentic  and  reliable, 
than  this  account  of  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt 
and  their  subsequent  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  as  given  in 
the  four  books  of  Moses.  And  the  Exodus  is  the  founda- 
ion-stone  of  the  Divine  legation  of  Moses. 

In  relation  to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  which  covers  an  his- 
toric period  of  more  than  2300  years,  the  case  is  somewhat 
different.  Moses  could  not  here  speak  from  his  own  per- 
sonal knowledge,  and  consequently  in  this  record  we  have 
not  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness.  Many  of  the  materials 
of  this  book,  however,  were  gathered  from  those  who  were 
eye-witnesses,  from  family  legends  and  registers,  from  care- 
fully transmitted  traditions,  and,  in  all  probability,  from 
some  primitive  documents  extant  in  the  time  of  Moses. 

Let  us  look  fairly  at  the  case  on  the  hypothesis  that  he 
depended  solely  on  oral  tradition.  Moses  was,  on  his  moth- 
er’s side,  a grandson  of  I^evi,  one  of  the  twelve  sons  of 
Jacob.  He  would  therefore  possess  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  time  of  the  first  going  down  to  Egypt,  and  of  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


83 


history  of  Joseph,  as  men  nowadays  possess  of  their  own 
families  in  the  days  of  their  grandparents.  On  this  ground 
alone,  Moses  becomes' as  good  an  authorit}^  for  the  largest 
and  most  important  part  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  embracing 
the  life  of  Joseph,  and  the  latter  part  of  the  life  of  Jacob, 
as  Herodotus  could  be  for  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  or  Fabius 
Pictor  for  the  account  of  the  third  Samnite  war. 

Again,  with  regard  to  the  earlier  history  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  I ask  you  to  remember  how  few  hands  the  tradition 
passed  through  from  Adam  to  Moses.  Adam  was  for  243 
years  contemi)orary  with  Methuselah.  Methuselah  was  for 
100  years  contemporary  with  Shem.  Shem  was  for  50  years 
contemporary  with  Jacob.  And  Jochebed,  Moses’  mother, 
was  the  daughter  of  Levi,  the  third  son  of  Jacob,  and  in  all 
likelihood  conversant  with  Jacob.  So  that,  supposing  Moses 
to  have  depended  solely  on  oral  tradition,  he  might  have 
obtained  the  histoiy  of  Abraham,  of  the  Dispersion,  and 
even  of  the  Deluge,  at  third-hand,  and  of  the  events  pre- 
ceding the  Deluge  at  fourth-hand.  Xow,  in  connection 
with  these  facts  let  it  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  events  of 
such  great  and  stirring  magnitude,  of  such  immediate  inter- 
est in  a nation’s  life,  as  for  example  the  Deluge  or  the  Dis- 
persion, would  cej’tainly  be  remembered  for  the  space  of 
tive  generations;  and  we  know  that  in  point  of  fact  the  oral 
tradition  of  the  Noachian  Deluge  was  preserved  with  re- 
markable accuracy  among  the  descendants  of  Noah  in 
Chaldea,  Egypt,  Greece,  Hindostan,  and  even  Mexico,  for 
2000  years.  But  when,  in  addition  to  this,  we  take  account 


84 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


of  the  almost  certain  fact  that  Moses  had  access  to  monu- 
ments and  records  and  family  and  tribal  registers  of  still 
earlier  times,  which  had  been  preserved  in  the  tents  of  the 
Patriarchs,  then  his  books  acquire  an  additional  historic 
value.  The  Book  of  Genesis  bears  internal  marks  of  being 
a compilation  from  earlier  documents.  The  Hebrew  lan- 
guage itself  bears  to  the  eye  of  the  scholar  intrinsic  evidence 
of  philological  development,  such  as  is  seen  in  a comparison 
of  the  English  of  Chaucer  with  that  of  Shakspeare,  and 
again  with  that  of  Macaulay. 

Again,  the  superscriptions  or  headings  of  particular 
portions  show  that  they  are  distinct  documents  incorporated 
by  Moses.  For  example,  the  two  accounts  given  of  the 
Creation,  the  first,  commencing  Chap.  i.  1,  “ In  the  begin- 
ning,” etc.,  which  is  a poetic  composition ; and  the  second, 
commencing  at  Chap.  ii.  6,  ‘‘  These  are  the  generations  of 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,”  a prose  composition,  are  evi- 
dently separate  documents.  So  also  are  Chap,  v.,  “This  is 
the  book  of  the  generations  of  Adam,”  and  Chap.  x.  1, 
“ These  are  the  generations  of  the  sons  of  Noah.”  These 
were  unquestionably  documents  which  came  to  the  hands  of 
Moses  from  antique  times,  and  which  he  incorporates  un- 
changed into  his  own  writings.  There  is  also  intrinsic  evi- 
dence of  his  having  had  access  to  earlier  writings  which 
have  this  peculiarity,  that  in  one  of  them  the  name  of  the 
Deity  is  EloJiim  and  in  the  other  Jehovah,  and  the  Elohistic 
documents  were  the  most  ancient.  These,  and  many  like 
indications,  naturally  suggest  that  Genesis  is  a compilation 
of  earlier  records. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES.  85 

Let  US  now  survey  the  ground  we  have  passed  over,  and 
epitomize  the  conclusions  we  have  reached. 

1.  The  Pentateuch  was  written  by  Moses. 

2.  Moses  was  an  eye-witness  and  an  actor,  in  fact  the 
principal  actor,  in  most  of  the  events  he  records. 

8.  In  regard  to  matters  not  coming  under  his  personal 
observation,  he  wrote  on  the  testimony  of  competent  eye- 
witnesses, and  on  the  authority  of  contemporaneous  docu- 
ments which  he  found  extant  among  the  families  of  the 
Patriarchs. 

Here,  then,  we  have  an  historical  hook  going  -backward 
to  the  very  springs  of  human  history,  which  gives  us  some 
information  as  to  the  origin  of  all  things,  and  especially  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  human  race;  which  narrates  the  earliest 
history  of  the  human  family,  and  shows  that  man  has  in 
all  ages  been  the  object  of  Divine  regard,  and  that  a Provi- 
dence has  presided  over  the  dispersions  and  migrations  of 
the  race.  This  history  is  found  by  all  fair  rules  of  historic 
criticism  to  be  as  authentic  and  as  credible  as  Herodotus, 
Xenophon,  Thuc}"dides,  Caesar,  or  Tacitus.  Moses,  at  any 
rate,  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  any  classic  historian. 
I shall  endeavor  to  show  in  the  next  lecture  that  he  stands 
on  a surer  platform  of  fact  than  any  of  them,  and  that  his 
teachings  as  to  the  relations  of  God  to  the  world  and  to 
humanity,  are  sustained  by  a body  of  evidence  which,  in  its 
cumulative  force,  is  more  convincing  than  the  evidence  in 
support  of  any  modern  scientific  theory  which  arrays  itself 
against  him. 


LECTURE  V. 


“ Through  Jaith  vje  understand  that  the  worlds  were  Jramed  by  the 
vjord  of  God?"^ — Hebrews  xi.  3. 

Ill  my  last  lecture  I stated  that  the  historical  portion  of 
the  Book  of  Genesis  alone,  ehihraces  a period  of  more  than 
.2500  years,  and  that  the  materials  for  the  history  of  that 
long  period  were  obtained  by  Moses,  1.  From  the  direct 
verbal  testimony  of  those  who  were  eye-witnesses  and  actors 
in  the  events,  2.  From  famil}^  legends  and  registers,  3. 
From  carefully  preserved  and  transmitted  traditions.  And 
4.  From  primitive  documentary  fragments  either  written  on 
papyrus-rolls  or  inscribed  on  stone,  which  were  in  existence 
at  the  time  of  Moses. 

The  documentary  hypothesis,  as  it  is  sometimes  called, 
rests  mainly  on  internal  evidence,  and  indirectly  on  the  fact 
that  such  remains  were  found  among  all  the  Semitic  nations. 
That  evidence  we  briefly  presented  in  the  last  lecture. 
Those  who  desire  to  investigate  the  subject  more  fully  will 
And  the  arguments  for  and  against  this  theory  fairly  pre- 
sented in  the  article  Pentateuch,  in  the  second  volume  of 
Dr.  Smith’s  Biblical  Dictionary.  The  writer  of  the  article, 
Mr.  Perowne,  Yice-Principal  of  St.  David’s  College,  and 
examining  chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  remarks  that 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


87 


“if  without  any  theory  casting  its  shadows  upon  (is,  and 
without  any  fear  of  consequences  before  our  eyes,  we  read 
thoughtfully  the  Book  of  Genesis,  we  can  hardly  escape  the 
conviction  that  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a compilation. 
It  has  indeed  a unity  of  plan,  a coherence  of  parts,  a shape- 
liness and  order,  which  satisfies  us  that  it  is  the  creation  of  a 
single  mind.  But  it  bears  also  manifest  traces  of  having 
been  based  upon  an  earlier  work,  and  that  earlier  work 
itself  seems  to  have  embedded  in  it  fragments  of  still  earlier 
documents.” 

I believe  the  theory  is  now  generally  accepted  by  the 
best  Hebrew  scholars  of  England  and  Germany.  Dr.  Whe- 
don  may  be  regarded  as  a fair  representative  of  American 
theological  opinion,  for  two  reasons:  1st.  Few  people  will 
question  his  accurate  scholarship;  and,  2d,  ^^o  one  I think 
can  doubt  his  evangelical  orthodoxy.  He  says;  “We  see 
not  the  slightest  objection  to  the  theory  that  Genesis  is 
largely  composed  of  preexisting  documents  arranged  and 
adjusted  by  Moses  under  Divine  direction.  What  is  gained, 
in  point  of  authenticity  or  of  value,  by  denying  all  previous 
record,  and  thi*bwing  Moses  entii*ely  on  oral  tradition,  we 
cannot  understand.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  a tradi- 
tional narrative  becomes  less  authentic  by  being  transferred 
from  the  oral  to  the  written.  On  the  contrary,  there  is 
something  gratifying  in  the  thought  that  in  the  Pentateuch 
we  read  not  only*the  writings  of  Moses,  but  those,  perhaps, 
of  Adam,  of  Seth,  of  Enoch,  forming  the  growing  Bible  of 
the  primitive  chufch  of  the  early  race.”  On  this  hypothesis 


88 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES . 


we  can  understand  how  these  precious  golden  fragments, 
being  few  and  far  between,  as,  for  example,  “the  Hymn  of 
Creation,”  probably  composed  by  Adam,  and  “the  Genera- 
tions of  the  Heavens  and  the  Earth,”  which  bears  internal 
marks  of  having  been  written  at  least  1500  years  later,  have 
the  appearance  of  being  very  incomplete,  even  in  the  hands 
of  Moses. 

For  myself,  I unhesitatingly  adopt  the  “documentary 
hypothesis”  with  all  its  consequences.  I am  satisfied  in  my 
own  mind  that  there  were  many  documents  in  existence  at 
the  time  that  Moses  wrote  besides  those  which  are  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Pentateuch.  Of  this  I hold  there  is  indirect 
evidence  in  the  book  itself.  From  these  ancient  documents, 
Moses  selected,  under  Divine  direction,  such  only  as  had 
direct  relation  to  the  sole  purpose  of  his  writing,  which  cer- 
tainly was  not  to  give  the  natural  history  of  the  earth,  nor 
even  the  natural  history  of  !iian,  nor  yet  the  civil  history  of 
the  Hebrews,  but  the  religious  history  of  the  Adamic  or 
Edenic  race  as  a covenant  race  which  God  took  under  His 
immediate  tutelage  and  providential  guidance,  that  in  and 
through  it  He  might  bless  all  the  other  families  and  races  of 
men.  Or,  in  other  words.  His  single  object  was  to  write  the 
history  of  the  kingdom  or  church  of  God  on  earth  from  the 
Protevangelium,  or  first  gospel  preached  in  Eden,  to  the 
redemption  from  Egyptian  bondage,  which  was  typical  of 
the  greater  redemption  by  Christ.  All  other  geographical, 
ethnological,  and  chronological  notices  are  but  incidental 
and  subsidiary  to  this  one  single  design. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


89 


The  history  of  Biblical  exegesis  demands  that  we  should 
take  account  of  another  theory,  which  is  gradually  obtain- 
ing the  suffrages  of  Biblical  scholars,  namely,  that  at  least 
some  of  the  ancient  documents  or  fragments  which  Moses 
incorporated  in  the  Pentateuch,  are  unchronological,  poetic, 
symbolic,  and  mythical. 

You  attempt  to  retrace  the  history  of  any  of  the  ancient 
nations,  and  after  following  it  for  a few  centuries  through 
the  long-drawn  aisles  of  antiquity,  its  oi*igin  vanishes  in 
that  mysterious  border-land  which  separates  the  historic 
from  the  unhistoric  period,  in  which  you  have  a strange 
commingling  of  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  and  a 
constant  intercourse  between  gods  and  men.  The  Iliad  of 
Homer  is  a splendid  mirror  in  which  such  an  unhistoric 
period  is  reflected,  as  also  the  Yedas  of  India,  and  the  Ed- 
das  of  the  ancient  Germans.  The  life  of  every  ancient 
nation,  like  the  life  of  every  individual,  has  its  beginnings 
in  a state  of  semi-unconsciousness  which  has  no  chronology, 
a state  of  childlike  subjectivit}"  in  which  the  conception  of 
the  actual  facts  is  modified  by  feeling  or  sentiment.  This 
period,  therefore,  was  one  in  which  the  conception  of  na- 
ture, and  of  the  power  which  moves  and  governs  nature, 
was  mythological,  the  language  in  which  it  was  expressed 
was  poetic,  and  the  worship  was  symbolical.  Every  ancient 
nation,  then,  has  had  its  mythical  period, — the  Assyrian,  the 
Hindoo,  the  Persian,  the  Egyptian,  the  Etruscan,  the  Scan^ 
dinavian ; and  why,  it  is  asked,  should  the  Caiuite,  the 
Sethic,  and  the  Semitic  races  be  regai'ded  as  exceptions  to 


90 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


the  general  law?  What  is  there  of  unreasonableness  or  of 
improbability  in  the  belief  that  the  Adamic  or  Edenic  race 
had  its  sacred  myths,  as  well  as  the  Cushites,  or  the  Aryan 
races;  and  if  they  had  their  sacred  myths,  I think  I can  see 
a fitness  and  a propriety  in  some  of  them  being  selected  by 
Moses,  and  incorporated  into  the  Book  of  Genesis  as  repre- 
sentations of  the  theological  and  religious  conceptions  of 
that  period.  I am  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  word 
itself  grates  offensively  on  the  ears  of  most  Christian  think- 
ers. The  word  myth  has  so  long  been  employed  as  synony- 
mous with  fable,  that  the  m3dhical  is  at  once  understood  to 
be  the  fabulous  and  the  untrue.  Strauss  has  made  so  mon- 
strous and  unfair  a use  of  the  mythical  hypothesis  in  his 
‘‘Lebeii  Jesu,”  that  Christians  nowadays  dislike  to  have  the 
word  used  in  connection  with  the  Bible.  ‘‘  The  histoiy  of  our 
Lord,”  says  Strauss,  “ is  a myth.”  There  needs  but  a single 
word  to  show  the  absurdity  of  such  an  hypothesis,  and  that 
word  has  been  well  spoken  b}^  Dr.  Arnold:  “ Think  of  the 

growth  of  a mjdh  in  that  sternly  historic  age  of  Livy,  Taci- 
tus, and  Suetonius!”  The  supposition  is  a glaring  absurd- 
ity. This  revulsion  from  the  absurdities  of  Strauss  has, 
however,  caused  the  peridulum  of  thought  to  fly  to  an  oppo- 
site extreme.  A sacred  myth  4000  v^ears  before  Christ  is  not 
to  be  rejected  because  of  Strauss’  unfairness  and  dishonesty. 
What,  then,  really  is  a myth?  I answer:  1st,  It  is  not  an 

untruth,  or,  as  Carlyle  says,  a “ no  fact,”  but  it  is  a poetic 
representation  of  a fact,  and  a representation  which  often 
goes  deeper  into  the  very  heart  and  meaning  of  the  fact. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


91 


than  all  bare  prosaic  descriptions  of  the  mere  outward,  sen- 
sible phenomena;  for,  as  Aristotle  remarks,  ‘‘Poetrj^  is  a 
tiling  more  philosophical  and  weighty  than  mere  fact-his- 
tory.” The  true  poet  interprets  nature  from  the  subjective 
stand-point,  in  obedience  to  an  innate  sentiment  of  the 
supernatural,  the  Divine.  There  is  something  in  him  akin 
to  inspiration,  and  hence  it  is  that  the  grandest  portions  of 
the  Old  Testament  revelation  are  poetic.  2dly,  A myth  is  not 
a fable,  it  is  not  a fictitious  narrative  without  any  historic 
basis.  In  the  words  of  Nitzsch,  one  of  the  best  and  sound- 
est theologians  of  Germany:  ‘‘A  myth  is  religious,  primeval 
history;”  but  it  differs  from  pure  histor}^,  first,  in  its  origin, 
being  prior  to  all  fixed  chronology  and  all  records;  sec- 
ondl}^,  in  the  fact  that  it  does  not  interrogate  and  inquire, 
but  it  asserts  and  testifies  in  order  to  produce  faith,  and  not 
to  impart  scientific  knowledge ; tliirdly,  it  delivers  the  facts 
unanalyzed,  and  in  a poetic  rather  than  a chronological  or- 
der. “ In  this  definition,”  says  Nitzsch,  ‘‘  nothing  is  involved 
which  precludes  the  discovery  of  myths  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures which  are  the  records  of  true  religion.  The  rather 
may  we  maintain  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  alone  contain 
true  myths,  and  heathenism  none.” 

To  my  mind  the  whole  controversy  as  to  whether  Moses 
has  incorporated  sacred  myths  into  the  books  of  Genesis 
hinges  on  a question  of  definition.  If  you  define  a myth  to 
be  a fable,  a fiction  wliich  has  no  historic  basis,  then  I say 
there  are  no  myths  in  Genesis.  If,  with  Nitzsch,  you  define 
a myth  to  be  a reiigious  primeval  history  which  is  poetic. 


92 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


iinchronological,  and  symbolic,  then  I can  see  no  reason 
why  there  should  not  be  myths  in  Genesis,  just  as  there  are 
fables,  allegories,  parables,  symbols,  and  complex  scenic 
representations,  in  the  other  parts  of  Scripture.  For  ex- 
ample, there  is  the  beautiful  fable  of  the  trees  choosing  their 
king  in  Judges;  the  allegory  of  the  vine  in  the  80th  Psalm; 
the  striking  parables  of  Christ;  the  gorgeous  symbolism  of 
Ezekiel’s  prophecy,  and  the  wonderful  scenic  representations 
of  the  Apocalyptic  vision.  And  so  I cannot  resist  the  con- 
viction that  there  are  sacred  myths  in  Genesis,  that  is,  there 
are  primeval  compositions  which  were  earlier  than  the 
writings  of  Moses  himself  by  nearly  two  thousand  years, — 
compositions  which  belong  to  that  primitive  condition  of  our 
race  in  which  theology  and  history  took  the  form  of  poetry 
and  symbol,  a period  in  which  all  mental  movement  was 
synthetic  and  not  analytic,  and  in  which  there  was  no  chron- 
ology and  no  attempt  at  scientific  classification.  In  a word, 
there  are  ancient  fragments  incorporated  by  Moses  which 
belong  to  the  earliest  life,  to  the  very  childhood  of  our  race, 
in  which  the  conceptions  of  God,  of  nature,  and  of  human- 
ity, were  determined  by  subjective  feeling  and  native  senti- 
ment, and  not  by  any  refiective  thought. 

I feel  that  I have  occupied  too  much  time  with  this  pre- 
liminary exposition,  perhaps  lured  on  by  the  peculiar 
fascination  which  the  whole  subject  has  over  my  own  mind. 
I deem  it  important  that  you  should  be  en  rapport  with  the 
progress  of  modern  thought,  especiall}^  in  regard  to  a theory 
which  is  in  itself  highly  philosophical,  wl^ich  is  accepted  by 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


93 


a great  number  of  orthodox  Christians,  and  which  disposes, 
at  one  stroke,  of  all  difficulties  and  all  objections  to  the 
Mosaic  record. 

And,  now,  let  us  endeavor  to  look  at  Genesis  in  its  sim- 
ple, original  form.  Let  ns  purge  our  minds  at  once  from 
that  order  of  prepossessions  which  are  incident  to  an  un- 
critical faith,  and  those  counter  prejudices  which  are  born 
of  a captious  skepticism;  and  especially  let  us  forget  the 
chronology  of  Archbishop  Ussher,  which  is  printed  on  the 
margin,  and  the  division  into  chapters  and  verses  made  by 
Hugh  de  St.  Cher,  both  modern  inventions,  which  are  really 
no  more  a part  of  the  sacred  record  than  the  paper  on  which 
it  is  printed,  and  have  done  more  harm  than  good.  The 
Book  of  Genesis  opens  with  a psalm,  a hymn  which  Klop- 
stock  in  his  day  called  an  “Ode  to  Creation,”  and  which 
Dr.  Whedon  long  ago  designated  “ a grand  Symbolic  Hymn 
of  Creation.”  As  far  back  as  1862,  I find  him  writing  in 
the  Quarterly  which  he  edits,  as  follows:  “The  rythmical 

character  of  the  passage,  its  stately  grandeur,  its  parallel- 
isms, its  refrains,  its  unity  within  itself,  all  combine  to  show 
that  it  is  a poem.”  An  analysis  of  its  interior  structure  ex- 
hibits a remarkable  synthesis.  It  has  first  an  exordium^  the 
proemial  part.  Then  it  is  articulated  into  six  strophes.  Then 
there  is  the  epode^  or  peroration.  The  six  strophes  part 
spontaneously  into  two  groups,  in  which  there  is  a balance 
and  correlation  of  parts  celebrating  the  first  three  and  the 
last  three  concordant  steps  of  the  creative  act, — the  strophe 
and  the  antistrophe. 


94 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


The  exordium  states  briefly  the  subject  of  the  poem, 
“111- the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.*’ 
The  first  three  strophes  unfold  the  creative  development  of 
the  receptaxiles, — ether,  avater,  land.  The  second  three 
strophes^  or  more  correctly  antistrophes,  unfold  the  crea- 
tive development  of  the  occupants, — luminaries,  avater 
TRIBES,  LAND  INHABITANTS.  The  epode^  01*  pcroratioii,  fills 
up  the  sacred  number  seven^  the  symbol,  always,  of  perman- 
ence and  repose.  “Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were 
finished  (the  receptacles),  and  all  the  host  of  them”  (the 
occupants).  “ And  on  the  seventh  day  God  put  a period  to 
the  Avork  Avhich  he  had  made.” 

I wish  I were  able  to  present  it  to  the  eye  as  it  npw  ap- 
pears to  my  mind  in  its  organic  unity.,  “a  solemn  sonnet, 
freighted  with  a single  thought  from  beginning  to  end.”  In 
our  English  version,  broken  up  into  Akerses  and  split  right 
across  into  tAvo  chapters,  it  is  like  an  image  refiected  in  a 
shattered  mirror;  all  its  real  beauty  is  concealed.  But  to 
him  who  can  look  with  a clear  eye  on  this  sublime  composi- 
tion, and  grasp  its  real  unity,  it  is  unquestionably  a real 
hymn,  composed  in  all  probability  by  Adam,  and  chanted 
in  the  tents  of  the  patriarchs  in  their  cA^ening  and  morning 
Avorship,  for  more  than  2000  years,  to  commemorate  the 
fact,  and  keep  alive  the  faith  that  this  Avorld  is  the  Avork  of 
a triune  God. 

XoAAq  if  this  be  a psalm  of  creation,  jmu  must  not  ex- 
pect that  it  shall  be  chronological,  that  it  shall  move  accor<l- 
ing  to  time-measures,  and  not  according  to  poetic-measures. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


95 


If  you  do,  you  are  simply  unreasonable.  The  106th  Psalm 
is  an  epic  poem,  that  is,  it  Is  a narrative  in  poetic  measure, 
a history  in  metrical  form.  Who  would  be  so  unreasonable 
as  to  demand  that  this  psalm  shall  furnish  any  chronological 
data,  or  conform  to  any  time-measures  whatever?  Psalms 
were  to  be  sung  and  felt,  not  to  be  merely  read  and  criti- 
cised. The  poet  groups  his  materials  for  the  best  moral 
elfect,  and  arranges  his  numbers  to  secure  rythm  and  har- 
mony. And  it  is  a simple  absurdity  to  demand  that  there 
shall  be  any  chronology;  nay,  it  spoils  the  grand  elfect  to 
tliink  of  any  chronology  in  reading  this  “ Symbolic  Hymn 
of  Creation.” 

In  fact,  you  are  forbidden  to  think  of  time  at  all  by  the 
very  first  word  of  the  exordium,  which  states  the  subject  of 
the  poem.  The  Hebrew  B’reshith,  the  Greek  dpyr^,  in  be- 
ginning (not  in  the  beginning,  for  the  article  is  not  used  at 
all),  has  no  relation  to  succession  in  time.  It  signifies  pre- 
temporally,  “before  time  or  in  eternity,”  and  is  so  ren- 
dered by  Meyer.  It  is  the  same  word  as  stands  in  John  i.  1, 
“ In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,”  etc.  And  Tholuch  and 
Dean  Alford  both  read  the  text,  “ Before  the  world  was,” 
or  before  there  were  any  time-measures.  Indeed,  the  whole 
poem  represents  an  ideal  conception,  and  not  a time-march 
of  phenomena  at  all.  So  convinced  am  I on  this  point,  that 
I am  confident  that  no  man  who  has  ever  attempted  to  con- 
ceive of  the  Creation  in  its  relation  to  God,  can  fall  into  the 
anthropomorphic  error  of  saying  that  “God’s  ways  are  like 
unto  our  ways,”  God’s  speaking  is  like  unto  our  speaking. 


96 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


and  God's  days  are  like  unto  our  days  of  tvvent3^-four  hours. 
As  Dr.  Whedon  has  justly  remarked:  “Our  traditional, 
human,  anthropomorphic,  unscientific  scientific  constructions 
of  this  chapter  are  Japhetic  interpretations  of  a Semetic 
text.” 

The  men  who  will  persist  in  regarding  “the  day  of 
God”  as  a solar  day  of  twenty-four  hours,  are  involved  in 
endless  inconsistencies  when  they  try  to  carry  their  method 
rigidly  forward  through  the  whole  Bible.  Human  or  finite 
measures  of  time,  when  applied  to  anything  which  God 
does,  can  only  be  an  accommodated  representation  to  meet 
our  feeble  comprehension,  and  we  are  constantly  guarded 
by  the  Bible  itself  against  a literal  and  anthropomorphic 
conception.  So  we  read  in  Job  x.  45:  “Hast  thou  eyes  of 
flesh,  or  seest  thou  as  man  seeth  ? Are  thy  days  as  man’s 
da}^s?”  To  say  that  God’s  days  of  working  are  like  our 
days,  is  just  as  absurd  and  degrading  a conception  as  to  say 
that  God’s  eyes  are  “ eyes  of  flesh”  like  ours,  and  it  is  amaz- 
ing that  any  thinking  man  can  fall  into  such  an  absurdity. 
Our  time-measures  cannot  condition  the  Divine  action. 
“One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a thousand  years,  aiid  a 
thousand  years  as  one  day,”  says  Peter,  which  simply 
means  that  time  does  not  condition  either  the  Divine  life  or 
the  Divine  action,  but  that  it  is  the  Divine  action  which 
makes  and  conditions  all  time.  Attempting  to  measure 
God’s  days  of  working  by  twenty-four  hours,  is  just  as  ab- 
surd as  the  attempt  to  measure  immensity  by  a three-foot 
rule,  or  Omnipotence  by  horse-power.  Try  your  twenty- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


97 


four  hour  measure  on  such  texts  as  the  following  ; “ Your 

father  Abraham  desired  to  see  my  ddy.’’’*  “The  day  ot  the 
son  of  man.”  “I  must  work  the  work  of  Him  that  sent 
me,  while  it  is  “If  thou  hadst  known  in  this  thy 

day."'*  “He  shall  rise  again  at  the  last  “The  day  of 

judgment.”  “The  day  of  salvation.”  “The  terrible  day 
of  God.”  It  will  be  a wholesome  and  profitable  exercise 
for  5mu  to  take  up  the  concordance  and  refer  to  all  tlie 
texts  ill  which  the  word  day  is  used  with  any,  even  the 
slightest,  relation  to  the  doings  of  God,  and  you  will  find 
that  it  is  always  an  indefinite  period  of  time  of  longer  or 
shorter  duration,  and  may  be  2400  years,  or  24,000  years, 
just  as  easy  as  twenty-four  hours.  A.nd  so  in  Genesis,  when 
it  is  said  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day,  Avill  you  really  pre- 
sume to  say  that  God  “rested”  as  you  rest,  because  he  was 
weary,  and  that  he  needed  to  rest  just  twenty-four  hours? 
Rise  above  your  narrow  conception  of  the  Deity,  lest  God 
himself  reprove  yon,  and  say  as  He  did  to  the  Jews  : “Dost 
thou  think  that  I am  altogether  such  an  one  as  thou  art,  but  I 
will  reprove  thee!  ” Is  not  God  “resting”  still,  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  word  “rest”  is  here  used?  Is  not  all  time 
since  the  creation  God’s  grand  Sabbath,  in  which  He  is  not  ^ 
doing  works  of  creation,  but  works  of  love  and  mercy  to 
our  race  ? 

If  men  were  not  blinded  by  a false  education,  they 
would  never  think  of  literal  solar  days  when  reading  Gene- 
sis. The  first  day,  the  second  day,  the  third  day,  could  not 

be  solar  days,  for  it  was  only  on  the  fourth  day  that  the  sun 
H 


98 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


became  visible  on  the  earth,  and  was  appointed  as  a time- 
measure  “to  rule  the  day.”  Finall}^  the  whole  creative 
epoch,  “the  creative  week,’’  is  called  (Gen.  ii.  5)  a clay  in 
the  second  account  of  “the  generation  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth.” 

It  has  been  insinuated  that  this  is  an  interpretation 
forced  upon  us  by  the  discoveries  of  modern  science,  that,  in 
fact,  Theology  has  been  perpetually  driven  back  from  her 
positions  by  Science,  and  has  been  oblig'ed  to  have  recourse 
to  subterfuge  and  equivocation  in  order  to  hold  any  ground. 
I answer,  the  insinuation  is  as  false  as  it  is  foul.  This  is  a 
mode  af  interpretation  which  was  propounded  ages  before 
Geology  was  known,  and  taught  by  Jewish  Doctors  and 
Christian  Fathers  for  1500  years.  St.  Augustine,  the  great 
father  of  Systematic  Theology,  who  was  born  354  A.  d., 
ages  before  Geology  was  born,  asks  the  question,  Wliat 
mean  these  days,  these  strange,  sunless  days?  Does  the 
enumeration  of  days  and  nights  avail  for  a distinction  be- 
tween the  nature  that  is  not  yet  formed,  and  that  which  is 
made,  so  that  they  shall  be  called  morning  (in  reference  to 
appearing,  receiving  form,  or  species),  and  evening  (in  ref- 
erence to  their  formlessness,  and  want  of  sensible  quality  or 
appearance).  Hence  he  does  not  hesitate  to  call  the  days 
nature-births,  growths,  or  solemn  pauses  in  the  Divine  work. 
They  are  “ days  ineffable ; ” “their  true  nature  cannot  be 
told.”  Hence  they  are  called  days  as  the  best  symbol  by 
which  they  could  be  expressed.  They  are  God-divided  days 
and  nights,  in  distinction  from  sun-divided.  (Common  solar 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


99 


days,  he  says,  are  mere  vicissitudes  of  the  heavens,  mere 
chamres  in  the  positions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  not 
evolutions  in  nature  which  belong  to  a higher  chronology, 
and  mark  their  epochs  by  a law  of  inward  change,  and  not 
of  outward  measurements.  As  to  how  long  or  how  short 
they  were,  he  gives  no  opinion,  but  contents  himself  with 
sa3ing  that  it  is  not  a name  of  duration.  The  evenings  and 
the  mornings  are  to  be  considered  not  so  much  in  respect  to 
the  passing  of  time,  as  to  their  marking  the  boundaries  of  a 
periodic  work  oi*  evolution.  This,  sa^^s  he,  is  not  a meta- 
phorical, but  the  real  and  proper  sense  of  the  word  da\^ 
the  most  real  and  proper  sense,  the  original  sense,  in  fact, 
inasmuch  as  it  contains  the  essential  idea  of  c}^clicity  or 
rounded  periodicity,  or  self-completed  time,  witliout  any  of 
the  mere  accidents  that  belong  to  the  outward,  solar,  or 
planetary  periods,  be  they  longer  or  shorter.  See  Lange’s 
Commentary  on  Genesis  ; Special  Introduction  b3-  Taylor 
Lewis,  LL.  D. 

It  is  sometimes  asked,  if  Moses  did  not  intend  the  com- 
mon solar  day,  why  did  he  not  give  us  some  intimation  to 
that  effect?  The  devout,  Scripture-loving,  and  Scripture- 
revering  Augustine  saw  such  intimations  in  abundance, — 
saw  them  on  the  very  face  of  the  account.  He  could  not 
read  the  lirst  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  think  of  ordinary 
days.  It  was  the  wondrous  style  of  the  narrative  that 
affected  him,  the  wondrous  nature  of  the  events  and  times 
narrated.  It  was  the  impression  of  vastness,  of  uniqueness, 
as  coming  from  the  account  itself,  but  which  so  escapes  the 


lOO 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


notice  of  unthinking  readers.  Wondrous  things  are  told  in 
wondrous  language,  and  therefore  common  terms  are  to  be 
taken  in  their  widest  compass,  and  in  their  essential  instead 
of  accidental  idea.  It  is  the  same  feeling  which  atfects  us 
when  we  contemplate  the  language  of  prophecy,  or  that 
which  is  called  the  great  day  of  the  world’s  eschatology. 
ISTo  better  terms  could  be  used  for  the  “creative  pauses,”  or 
“successive  natures,”  as  he  styles  them;  and  so  no  better 
words  could  be  used  than  “morning”  and  “evening”  to 
indicate  the  antithetical  vicissitudes  through  which  these 
successive  natures  were  introduced.  The  first  day  is  simply 
one  great  cycle  in  the  history  of  nature.  It  begins  with 
“ an  evening,”  not  with  “ a mtorning.”  “ The  evening”  was 
the  period  of  chaos,  of  darkness,  of  invisibility,  of  form- 
lessness,[and  of  indivisibility.  “ The  morning”  was  the  com- 
mencement of  motion  in  this  chaos,  of  separation,  and  of 
luminosity.  God  calls  this  new  phase  of  the  earth’s  history 
“day;”  the  condition  which  preceded  it  he  calls  “night.” 
This  is  God's  own  use  and  meaning  of  the  words,  and  we 
must  take  it  as  our  guide  in  interpreting  the  whole  history 
of  the  creative  week.  It  is  not  duration,  but  the  phenome- 
non, the  appearing  itself,  which  He  calls  day.  See  Lange’s 
Commentary;  Special  Introduction  by  Taylor  Lewis,  LL.  D. 

And  this  was  not  a mere  fancy  of  St.  Augustine.  It 
w’as  the  doctrine  of  the  best  of  the  Christian  fathers,  of  Ire- 
nseus.  Origin,  Jerome,  Basil,  Gregory  I^azianzen.  ^^ay 
more,  it  was  the  doctrine  of  many  of  the  doctors  of  the  old 
Jewish  church.  In  more  recent  times,  Calmet,  Burnet, 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


lOI 


Stilliiigfleet,  Henry  More,  Lord  Bacon,  Poole,  and  others, 
have  entertained  similar  opinions;  and  this  was  long  before 
Geology  existed  as  a science,  and  independent  of  any  col- 
lision with  physical  induction.  Their  opinions  and  inter- 
pretations were  consequently  no  shift  for  the  avoidance  of 
difficulties,  hut  conclusions  reached  on  sound  principles  of 
Biblical  exegesis. 

If  the  first  chapter  in  Genesis  be  sacred,  poetry  then  we 
are  not  justified  in  expecting  to  find  in  it  either  the  princi- 
ples or  the  phraseology  of  science  an}"  more  than  in  the 
Book  of  Psalms.  That  sacred  hymn  is  no  more  a literal 
detail  of  the  actual  process  of  creation,  than  the  description 
of  the  New  Jerusalem  in  Kevelation  is  a literal  picture  of 
the  heavenly  state.  The  design  of  all  revelation  is  not  to 
teach  science,  but  to  teach  i*eligion.  A revelation  made  in 
the  language  of  science  would  have  been  unintelligible  to 
the  race  for  6000  years  of  its  history,  and,  practically,  would 
have  been  no  revelation  at  all.  The  design  of  the  sacred 
Hymn  of  Creation  was  to  keep  before  the  minds  of  the  early 
families  of  men  a pure  theism,  to  teach  them  that  Jehovah 
is  the  sole  Creator  and  Lord  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

No  candid  man  will  deny  that  it  fulfills  that  purpose 
admirably.  You  must  feel  that  it  was  well  adapted  to  the 
mind  of  the  early  races  of  men,  and  that  for  all  moral  and 
religious  purposes  it  does  its  work  and  fulfills  its  purpose  just 
as  perfectly  in  these  days  of  modern  science.  It  is  so  filled 
and  permeated  with  religious  grandeur  that  it  can  never  be 
supplanted  and  rendered  void.  No  one  can  read  it  without 


102 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


being  impressed  with  its  moral  superiority  to  all  heathen 
cosmogonies,  and  ancient  physical  theories,  even  that  of 
Plato  himself.  It  is  fi-ee  from  all  tlie  grotesque  flights  and 
fantastic  imagery  by  which  they  are  disfigured.  There  is 
no  attempt  to  startle  by  wild  conjectures,  or  to  pander  to  a 
foolish  curiosity.  It  maintains  a solemn  grandeur  and  a 
simple  earnestness  throughout.  There  is  no  confounding  of 
God  with  his  works,  no  perplexity  from  rival  powers,  no 
subjecting  of  the  Deity  to  a dark  necessity.  It  stands  equally 
opposed  to  all  Dualistic,  Pantheistic,  and  Materialistic  con- 
ceptions of  the  origin  of  things.  It  is  itself  a silent  refuta- 
tion of  the  absurd  theory  that  it  was  derived  from  an 
oriental  source.  It  came  here  from  God. 

The  Hebrew  cosmogony  is  familiar  to  you  all.  Let  me 
read  you  the  Chaldean  cosmogony  as  given  by  Berosus: 

“ In  the  beginning  all  was  darkness  and  water,  and 
therein  were  generated  monstrous  animals  of  strange  and 
peculiar  forms.  There  were  men  with  two  wings,  and 
others  even  with  four,  and  with  two  faces ; and  others  with 
two  heads,  a man’s  and  a woman’s  on  one  body;  and  there 
were  men  with  the  heads  and  horns  of  goats,  and  men  with 
hoofs  like  horses,  and  some  with  the  upper  parts  of  a man 
joined  to  the  lower  parts  of  a horse,  like  centaurs;  and 
there  were  bulls  with  human  heads,  dogs  with  four  bodies 
and  with  fishes’  tails,  men  and  horses  with  dogs’  heads, 
etc.  A woman  ruled  them  all,  by  name  Omorka,  which  is 
the  same  as  ‘ the  sea.’  ” 

“AndBelus  appeared,  and  split  the  woman  in  twain; 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


103 


and  of  the  one  half  of  her  he  made  the  heaven,  and  of  the 
other  half  the  earth,  and  the  beasts  that  were  in  her  he 
caused  to  perish.  And  he  split  the  darkness,  and  divided 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  sunder,  and  put  the  world  in 
ordei*,  and  the  animals  that  coidd  not  bear  the  light,  per- 
ished.” 

“Belus,  upon  this,  seeing  the  desolation  of  the  earth 
yet  teeming  with  productive  powers,  commanded  one  of  the 
gods  to  cut  oft  his  head,  and  to  mix  the  blood  which  flowed 
forth  with  earth,  and  form  men  therewith,  and  beasts  that 
could  bear  the  light.  So  man  was  made  and  was  intelli- 
gent, being  a partaker  of  the  ‘Divine  wisdom.’  ’’ 

How  simple  and  beautiful  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  in 
contrast  with  this!  How  clearly  and  forcibly  does  it  present 
the  gi*eat  truths  which  all  scientific  men  regard  as  lying  at 
the  basis  of  all  true  conceptions  of  the  universe,  that  God 
is  before  all  things  and  the  Creator  of  nil  things,  that  He 
alone  is  unbeginning,  and  all  things  else  had  a beginning 
in  His  creative  will  and  word.  It  presents  the  universe  as 
one  harmonious  whole,  the  product  of  one  designing  Mind, 
the  project  of  His  thought,  the  transcript  of  His  eternal  plan, 
— a plan  which  was  evolved  through  successive  stages  toward 
a foreseen  terminus  or  goal ; and,  finally,  it  teaches  that  man 
is  the  end  toward  which  the  creative  work  was  tending,  the 
last  and  crowning  work  of  God,  and  that  he  is  the  child  and 
charge,  not  of  a blind  impersonal  nature,  but  of  a living, 
loving  God.  Who  presumes  to  say  that  this  teaching  is  out 
of  harmony  with  the  most  advanced  science  ? 


104 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


We  earnestly  maintain  that  the  inspired  Hymn  of  Ci*ea- 
tion  was  given  for  the  instruction  of  unscientific  peisons, 
and  therefore  its  thought  is  theological  and  not  scientific. 
Still  we  also  believe  that  all  truth  is  one,  and  that  revelation, 
whether  in  Scripture  or  nature,  must  be  harmonious.  Science 
in  its  last  analysis  must  be  Theology.  Theology  in  its  proper 
development  must  be  Science.  The^^  were  twin  children  of 
heaven,  vestal  virgins  which  can  never  be  wedded  to  erior. 
We  are  therefore  justified  in  the  expectation  that  the  reve- 
lation in  Scripture,  when  rightly  interpreted,  will  contain 
nothing  that  is  inconsistent  with  the  scientific  interpretation 
of  nature.  The  God  of  all  true  science,  and  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  teaches  the  same  immutable  and  eternal  truth.  While 
we  admit  that  there  are  no  untimely  anticipations  of  scien- 
tific discovery  in  Genesis,  yet  we  expect  that  when  the 
scientific  discoveries  are  made,  the  congruity  and  dignity  of 
the  moral  and  religious  lesson  will  not  be  defeated  and 
marred.  This  is  all  that,  upon  any  sober  and  rational  theory 
of  inspiration,  we  have  a right  to  demand. 

That  there  is  such  an  agi’cement  between  Science  and 
Kevelation  cannot  be  fairly  denied.  It  has  been  forcibly 
exhibited  in  the  hearing  of  most  of  you  by  my  friend  and 
colleague  Dr.  Winchell.  My  duty  as  a theologian  is  now 
simply  to  interpret  Scripture  fairly  and  honestly ; and  with 
the  views  which  I now  sincerely  entei  tain,  I say  to  the  man 
of  science,  go  forward  fearlessly  with  your  investigation. 
Take  all  the  time  your  science  demands;  the  sacred  Hymn 
of  Creation  prescribes  no  limits  whatever. 


LECTURE  VI. 


Rememher  the  days  of  oldj  consider  the  years  of  many  generations : 
ask  thy  father^  and  he  will  shew  thee  thy  elders^  and  they  will  tell  thee. 

When  the  Most  High  divided  to  the  nations  their  inheritance^  whe?i 
he  separated  the  sons  of  Adam,  he  set  the  hounds  of  the  people  according 
to  the  number  of  the  children  of  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  7,  8. 

In  my  last  lecture  I expressed  the  growing  conviction  of 
Biblical  scholars  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  a compilation. 
The  author  of  that  book  has  incorporated  into  his  history  of 
the  religious  development  of  the  world  certain  documents 
of  very  hign  antiquit}^  which  lie  found  extant  among  the 
Patriarchal  families. 

The  first  of  these  documents,  or  fragments,  is  the  sacred 
Hjunn  of  Creation,  commencing  ch.  i.  1,  and  extending  to 
ch.  ii.  3.  This  sacred  Hymn,  hy  whomsoever  written,  I re- 
gard as  an  inspired  Psalm,  just  as  truly  as  the  Psalms  of 
David.  The  second  of  these  documents  is  “the  Generations 
of  the  Heavens  and  Earth,”  commencing  at  ch.  ii.  4,  and 
extending  to  the  end  of  ch.  iv.  A third  document  is  “the 
Book  of  the  Generations  of  Adam,”  commencing  at  ch.  v. 
And  a fourth  is  “the  Generations  of  Noah,”  commencing  at 
ch.  X.  It  is  obvious,  at  a glance,  that  these  “Books  of  the 
Generations”  of  Adam  and  Noah,  are  not  accounts  of  the  ori- 
gin or  births  of  Adam  and  Noah,  but  histories  of  their  sue- 


io6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


cassors,  their  clesceiidaiits.  They  imi-rate  what  succeeds,  and 
not  wliat  precedes  tlieir  various  captions,  or  J leadings. 
Therefore  I think  we  are  sliut  up  to  the  conclusion  that 
“the  Generations  of  the  Heavens  and  Earth,”  commencing 
at  ch.  ii.  3,  is  not  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  but  of  a subsecpient  special  development  of  the 
earth  and  man  distinct  from  the  origination  de  novo  of  the 
sacred  Hymn  of  Creation. 

One  thing,  at  any  rate,  is  obvious  at  a glance,  the  two 
accounts  are  dilferent  in  many  respects.  First,  the}^  bear 
internal  evidence  of  having  been  written  at  widely  different 
periods  of  time.  The  last  must  have  been  written  at  least 
1500  years  later  than  the  former,  for  we  have  in  it  geo- 
graphical allusions  to  Ethiopia,  or  the  land  of  Cush,  and  to 
Assyria,  or  the  land  of  Asshur,  and  these  were  not  settled 
by  Cush  and  Asshur,  the  descendants  of  Koah,  till  after  the 
dispersion  fi*om  Babel,  900  years  subsequent  to  the  death  of 
Adam.  Secondly,  the  latter  is  an  account  of  the  generations, 
births,  or  developments  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  “after 
they  were  made,”  or,  as  Lange  expresses  it,  “the  commencing 
historical  development  of  the  world,  the  heaven,  and  earth 
after  they  are  tinished,”  for  “ Paradise,  in  a mystical  sense, 
is  still  heaven  and  earth  together.”  It  is  a history,  therefore, 
of  a local  and  special  development.  Thirdly,  the  account  of 
the  Edenic  man  in  ch.  ii.,  is  different  from  the  account  of 
the  Generic  man  in  ch.  i.  In  Genesis  i.  27,  the  Hebrew  is 

bara,  created,  originated.  In  Genesis  ii.  7,  the  Hebrew  is 

%atzar,  fashioned,  molded,  developed,  as  the  potter  fashions. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


lO  7 

molds,  or  develops  the  vessel  out  of  clay.  Hence  good  He- 
brew scliolars  read  the  verse,  “and  God  developed  Adam, 
dust  of  the  earth.” 

Maj^  we  not  therefore  fairly  conclude  tliat  the  sacred 
Hymn  of  Creation  celebrates  the  origination,  the  creation,  of 
all  things  and  beings  and  races  by  God,  and  teaches  us  that 
He  is  the  Creator  and  Lord  and  Proprietor  of  all;  and  that 
“the  generations,  births,  or  developments  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth,”  narrate  a more  specialized,  local,  Edenic 
commencement,  within  appreciable  and  ascertainable  historic 
and  geographical  limits. 

The  first  account,  we  have  seen,  is  ideal,  poetic,  and  un- 
chronological,  and  cannot  be  subjected  to  time-measures. 
The  latter  begins  a chronology,  and  fixes  a starting-point  in 
the  history  of  the  covenant  race,  and  in  the  development  of 
a religious  econom}\  Under  no  circumstances  can  the  first 
account  come  in  conflict  with  the  facts  of  science.  It  stands 
in  no  relation  to  geological  time,  and  it  has  no  conflict  with 
the  doctrine  of  geographical  centres  for  the  fauna  and  flora 
of  the  eaith. 

And  here  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  a question 
which  is  being  earnestly  discussed  in  the  fields  of  sbience, 
and  which  it  is  impossible  for  the  theologian  to  ignore. 
The  conviction  is  gradually  gaining  ground  among  scientific 
men  that  the  human  race  did  not  originate  in  a single  pair 
of  progenitors,  but  in  a plurality  of  pairs  (perhaps  three  or 
four)  placed  in  diflferent  geographical  centres;  and  further- 
more, that  there  were  races  of  men  upon  the  earth  ages  prior 


io8 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


to  the  Caucasian  or  Edenic  race.  1 shall  not  enter  upon  a 
detail  of  the  reasons  for  this  theory,  or  ^ive  any  decided 
opinion  as  to  its  merits.  It  is  a pure  question  of  science  to 
he  decided  on  purely  scientific  grounds.  Let  no  Christian 
place  himself  in  the  attitude  of  an  ignorant  declaimer  against 
true  science.  It  is  God’s  truth  revealed  in  nature,  and  lie 
who  fights  against  it,  is  simply  fighting  against  God.  But 
suppose  the  archeologist,  the  ethnologist,  and  the  philologist 
shall  finally  reach  the  conclusive  proof  of  a diversity  of 
races  and  of  origins  in  time,  what  then?  I answer  for  1115^- 
self,  the  ijrospect  occasions  me  no  anxiety.  I feel  no  alarm. 
It  will  not,  for  a moment,  disturb  my  faith  in  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible,  in  the  Divine  mission  of  Christ  as  the  Teacher, 
Eedeemer,  and  Saviour  of  all  men  of  all  races.  I do  not 
feel  that  I shall  need  to  reconstruct  my  theological  system, 
or  rewrite  my  creed,  or  abate  one  jot  or  tittle  of  any  evan- 
gelical utterance.  God  will  still,  in  my  creed,  be  the  loving 
Father  of  all  races  of  men.  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  Jew 
only,  or  the  Caucasian  only,  but  of  the  Gentiles  (ra  eOur]) 
also.  The  Greek  and  the  Arabian,  the  Mongolian  and  the 
Negro,  the  Tartar  and  the  American  Indian,  may  still  say, 
with  as  much  feeling  and  truth  as  ever  before,  “We  are  the 
offspring  of  God!  ” The  image  of  God  which  consists  in  in- 
telligence, freedom,  and  the  capacity  of  moral  and  religious 
affection  and  action,  in  some  of  its  lineaments  remains  on 
all  amid  the  ruins.  The  unity  of  the  race  will  still  remain 
as  a physiological  unity  if  not  a genetic  unity;  it  is  still  a 
“ l)lood-unity  ” if  not  a unity  of  lineal  descent.  Christ  will 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES.  I09 

still  be  the  Redeemer  and  Saviour  of  all  men,  even  of  those 
who  have  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam’s  trans- 
gressions, who  was  the  figure,  or  type,  of  Him  who  was  to 
come.”  The  second  Adam,  the  second  covenant  head  and 
representative,  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  a Semite 
and  Caucasian,  that  in  him  all  nations,  tribes,  and  families 
might  be  blessed.  So  that  in  Christ,  that  is,  in  his  plans, 
his  purposes,  his  sympathies,  his  redemption,  there  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  Barbarian  nor  Sythian,  bond  nor  free,  male 
nor  female,  all  are  as  one.  They  all  need  a Saviour,  and  a 
Saviour  is  sent  to  all.  And  this  need  of  a Saviour  is  surely 
not  to  be  predicated  on  our  being  the  lineal  descendants  of 
one  man,  so  much  as  on  the  fact  that  “ we  have  all  sinned 
and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.”  Christianity  stands  on 
broad,  obvious,  conscious  facts  of  personal  sin  and  personal 
guilt,  and  not  on  any  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  sin.  Surely 
there  is  nothing  to  be  feared  from  the  progress  of  true 
science.  Let  us  be  calm  and  dignified  in  our  faith.  Sooner 
shall  heaven  and  earth  pass  away  than  God’s  truth  fail. 
Human  interpretations,  conceptions,  and  symbols  have 
changed,  and  must  change;  but  God’s  eternal  word  “abides 
forever.” 

So  much  provisionally.  I ought  to  state  further  that 
there  are  many  theologians  of  acknowledged  orthodoxy  who 
believe  in  the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  whole  Bible  as  the 
true  and  real  W ord  of  God,  who  hold  that  the  generations, 
births,  or  developments  of  the  heavens  and  earth,  com- 
mencing at  ch.  ii.  4,  is  the  account  of  the  special  and  local 


no 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


commeiiceiiieut  of  jin  Edeiiic  nice  in  an  Edenic  centre,  the 
calling  into  being  of  a specially  endowed  and  Divinely  in- 
structed man,  the  covenant  man,  who  was  the  tigure  of  Him 
who  was  to  come,  that  is,  lie  was  the  type  of  Christ,  the 
Teacher  and  Redeemer.  The  Edenic  man  appears  as  the 
instructor,  the  teacher,  of  the  prehistoric  races.  This  is  ‘‘the 
seed*’  through  which  God  will  elevate  and  bless  the  Turan- 
ian, the  Khamite,  the  Negro.  The  Caucasian  race,  lix  it  as 
you  may,  has  always  been  the  missionary  race,  the  civilizing 
race,  the  educating  race,  in  every  age.  This  last  and  noblest 
of  the  species  began  in  the  Edenic  centre  about  six  thousand 
3' ears  ago,  and  from  that  point  a lixed  chronology  begins. 
Its  mission  was  partial!}"  interrupted  by  the  Fall.  The  first 
covenant  man  Adam  was  defeated  b\"  temptation,  the  second 
covenant  Adam  conquered.  As  it  was,  Cain  and  his  race 
(the  Cainites)  going  eastward  before  the  flood,  built  cities  for 
the  older  races,  instituted  pasturage  of  cattle,  invented  music, 
and  wrought  in  metals.  They  gave  to  the  Chinese  the  civi- 
lization they  stereotyped  but  could  not  improve,  and  finally 
were  fused  and  lost  in  the  earlier  indigenous  races,  and 
China  remains  where  Jabel  and  Tubal-Cain  left  it  five 
thousand  }"ears  ago. 

The  deluge  occurring  in  an  area  covering  the  valley  of 
the  Euphrates,  described  by  Hugh  Miller,  destroyed  the 
pure  Caucasian  race  except  a single  fainil}-.  When  the  flood 
subsided,  the  progenitors  of  the  Caucasian  race,  Sheni,  Ham, 
and  Japhet,  went  forth  from  tlie  plains  of  Shinar.  Shem 
and  his  race  peopled  Syria,  Chaldea,  and  Arabia.  Ham 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


1 1 I 


peopled  Egypt.  Of  Japliet  and  Ids  descendants,  some  went 
eastward  into  India  and  others  westward  to  Europe  (the 
Indo-European  race).  The  sons  of  Ham  led  hy  Mizraim  got 
possession  of  Egypt,  as  Josephus  says,  “ without  a battle,” 
and  ruled  as  the  “Shepherd  Kings”  during  five  hundred 
years,  from  the  dispersion  to  the  death  of  Joseph.  The 
Shepherd  Race,  after  invading  in  vain  Syria,  Greece,  and  Car- 
thage in  succession,  emigrated  to  America,  and  erected  those 
vast  piles  of  architecture  in  Egyptian  or  Cushite  style  which 
are  the  wonder  of  the  traveler  in  Central  America  to-daj \ 

“ The  two  languages  of  the  two  distinguished  tribes  of 
the  Caucasian  i-ace,  Hebrew  and  Aryan,  ditfer  widely; 
neither  can  be  derived  from  the  other;  but  both  bear  marks 
of  derivation  from  a common  origin.  Each  is  a wonderful 
structure,  appearing  as  if  created  by  some  master-mind,  and 
yet  showing  traces  of  some  fracture  like  that  at  Babel.  The 
speakers  of  these  two  dialects  alone  possess  a history.  This 
one  Caucasian  race  alone,  being  about  one-tifth  of  all  the 
races,  is  a superincumbent  patch,  as  if  latest  born,  and  over- 
lying  all  the  rest.”  (See  “ Metliodist  Quarterly  Review,” 
January,  1871,  p.  154.) 

How  many  difficulties  now  disappear!  Kow  we  can  un- 
derstand where  Cain  found  his  wife,  and  for  whom  he 
builded  cities.  Now  we  can  conjecture  who  were  “ the  sons 
of  God,”  the  covenant  race,  and  who  “the  daughters  of 
men,”  the  prehistoric  races  mentioned  in  ch.  iv.* 


* To  those  who  are  desirous  to  pursue  this  inquiry  further  I 
commend  I)r.  McCauslaiid’s  ‘‘Adam  and  the  Adamites,”  a work 


I 12 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES, 


We  have  now  reached  the  solid  platform  of  history  and 
of  a fixed  chronology,  and  I proceed  to  siiow  how  the  lead- 
ing facts  of  Genesis  are  confirmed  by  distinct  and  independ- 
ent proof. 

There  is  an  important  historic  event  narrated  by  Moses 
in  which  it  appears  that  the  Edenic  race,  save  eight  persons, 
was  destroyed  by  a flood.  We  might  naturally  expect  that 
an  event  of  such  magnitude  would  leave  an  impression  upon 
the  common  mind  of  our  race  which  could  not  be  easily  for- 
gotten. Accordingly  we  find  the  traditions  of  a flood 
amongst  all  tlie  families  of  ancient  and  modern  times. 

This  tradition  appears  in  the  old  mythologies  of  Egypt, 
Greece,  Chaldea  and  Rome,  India  and  ISTorthern  Europe, 
Mexico  and  South  America,  and  it  still  lives  in  most  distant 
countries,  and  amongst  the  most  isolated  and  scattered 
tribes.  You  may  find  this  tradition  of  the  flood  in  India, 
amongst  the  Arabs  and  the  Africans,  and  still  more  vividly 
amongst  the  aboriginal  tribes  in  N'orth  and  South  America, 
and  even  amongst  the  isolated  tribes  in  the  South  Seas. 

The  fragments  of  Berosus  the  Chaldean,  and  Manetho 
the  Egyptian,  are  the  most  authentic  and  ancient  historic 
documents  in  the  world,  and  they  both  give  an  account  of 

written  in  a reverent  spirit,  and  by  a scholar  of  the  highest  repute 
in  England.  Of  course  we  cannot  endorse  all  the  views  presented. 
We  think  the  writer  very  unfortunate  in  his  exposition  of  Genesis 
vi.  1-f.  “ The  sons  of  God  ” he  regards  as  the  pre-historic  or  pre- 

Edenic  ract  s,  and  “ the  daughters  of  men  ” are  the  descendants  of 
Adam.  This  seems  to  us  a complete  reversal  of  the  fact.  If  there 
were  any  people  on  the  earth  to  whom  the  title  “ sons  of  God  ” was 
appropriate,  it  must  have  been  the  descendants  of  the  Adam  who, 
Luke  says,  “ was  the  son  of  God.”— Oh.  iii.  33. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


II3 


the  deluge.  Berosus  mentions  Noa^i  by  name  together  with 
his  three  sons,  Sheni,  Ham,  and  Japhet.  Lucian’s  account 
of  the  flood  is  familiar  to  every  Greek  scholar,  who  recog- 
nizes at  once  in  Deucalion  the  N'oah  of  Scripture.  Sir 
William  Jones,  the  accomplished  oriental  scholar,  tells  us 
that  the  tradition  of  a flood  is  prevalent  throughout  the 
whole  of  continental  India.  The  great  naturalist  and  trav- 
eler Humboldt  says  he  found  the  belief  of  a deluge  fresh 
and  distinct  among  the  whole  of  the  Indian  Tribes  of  South 
America.  You  are  most  of  you  acquainted  with  the  Mexican 
tradition,  asalso  thatof  ourlYorth  American  Indians,  and  we 
found  it  existing  with  remarkable  circumstantiality  amongst 
the  Feejeans  in  the  South  Seas. 

To  the  Scripture  account  of  a deluge  it  has  been  urged 
as  an  objection,  that  the  Ark  of  ISToah  was  not  of  sufficient 
capacity  to  contain  even  a mere  fraction  of  the  different 
species  of  the  animal  kingdom,  much  less  provender  for  one 
hundred  and  fifty  days;  that  there  was  not  water  enough  in 
all  the  clouds  and  seas  to  drown  the  world,  and  rise  fifteen 
cubits  above  the  highest  hills;  and  that  there  are  now  trees 
living  upon  the  earth,  as  the  Baobab  in  Africa  and  the  Tax- 
odium  in  South  America,  which  are  six  thousand  years  old, 
and  as  they  are  now  living,  there  could  have  been  no  flood 
during  that  period  or  they  would  have  been  destroyed. 
Yow,  we  grant  at  once  that  all  these  arguments  are  valid  as 
urged  against  a universal  deluge,  but  we  neutralize  all  these 
objections  against  the  Mosaic  record  by  one  simple  affirma- 
tion,—the  deluge  of  N'oah  was  a local  deluge,  and  not  a 

I 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES, 


II4 

universal  one;  it  was  a flood  not  covering  the  entire  globe, 
but  a flood  brought  upon  the  “world  of  the  ungodly,”  and 
that  world  of  the  luigodly  occupied  a small  portion  of  the 
globe  in  the  centre  of  the  Asiatic  continent. 

The  world  of  the  ancient  patriarchs  was  not  the  entire 
globe,  but  simply  so  much  as  was  known  to  and  occupied  by 
them.  When  therefore  it  is  said  “ that  the  fear  of  the 
Israelites  was  upon  every  nation  under  heaven,”  of  course  it 
can  only  mean  the  nations  who  knew  them,  the  nations  of 
Arabia  and  Mesopotamia.  When  it  is  said  that  at  the  da}"  of 
Pentecost  there  were  Jews  assembled  at  Jerusalem  out  of 
every  nation  under  heaven,  we  certainly  do  not  understand 
there  were  Jews  there  from  America,  for  Columbus  had  not 
then  crossed  the  Atlantic;  America  was  an  undiscovered 
land.  So  when  it  is  said  the  earth  was  covered  and  all  the 
high  hills  under  heaven,  we  cannot  suppose  the  flood  pre- 
vailed on  this  continent,  or  that  the  Andes  were  submerged; 
it  must  mean  the  earth  then  known  and  inhabited,  the  hills 
with  which  they  were  acquainted. 

The  Confusion  of  Tongues  and  the  Dispersion  of  the 
Noachidse,  the  descendants  of  Noah,  are  important  facts  in 
the  Mosaic  History.  It  marks  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates 
as  the  grand  geographical  centre  of  the  covenant  Race. 

When  the  descendants  of  Noah,  in  their  first  emigra- 
tion, gathered  together  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  “in 
the  land  of  Shinar,”  they  said  “ Let  us  build  ourselves  a city 
and  a tower  whose  top  may  reach  to  the  heavens.”  It  is  un- 
necessary to  suppose,  as  some  have,  that  any  real  idea  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


“scaling  the  heavens”  was  entertained  by  the  builders  of 
the  Tower  of  Babel  or  any  other  Babylonian  temple-towers. 
The  expression  used  in  Genesis  is  unquestionably  a mere 
hyperbole  for  “ great  heights,”  and  should  not  be  literally 
construed.  The  more  natural  hypothesis  would  be  that  the 
“high  tower”  was  designed  as  a refuge  against  future 
catasti-ophes  and  deluges;  and  the  city  was  a development 
of  that  centralizingtendency  which  reveals  itself  in  the  early 
history  of  our  race.  Both  of  these  motives  must  have  been 
displeasing  to  God.  The  first  i-eveals  a want  of  faith  in  the 
Divine  promise  no  more  to  bring  a deluge  on  the  earth;  the 
second  was  a contravention  of  the  Divine  purpose  to  people, 
redeem,  and  subdue  the  earth  through  the  agency  of  the 
covenant  Race. 

The  circumstantial  accuracy  of  the  narrative  is,  at  any 
rate,  deserving  of  notice.  There  was  no  stone  in  the  alluvial 
tract  produced  and  watered  by  “ the  great  river  ” and  the 
Tigris.  It  is  expressly  stated  that  in  proceeding  to  rear  the 
proposed  edifice  “they  had  brick  for  (or  instead  of)  stone, 
and  slime  had  they  for  mortar.”  And  though  some  have 
attempted  to  cast  ridicule  on  the  record  of  these  labors, 
Heeren,  no  mean  authority,  emphatically  says,  “ There  is 
perhaps  nowhere  else  to  be  found  a narrative  so  venerable 
for  its  antiquity,  or  so  important  in  the  history  of  civiliza- 
tion, in  which  we  have  at  once  preserved  the  traces  of  a 
primeval  national  commerce,  the  first  political  associations, 
and  the  first  erection  of  secure  and  permanent  buildings.” 

But  what  is  still  more  to  the  purpose,  we  have  the  col- 


ii6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


lateral  testimony  of  Berosus,  the  Chaldean  historian,  who 
writes  as  follows:  “At  that  time  the  men  of  antiquity 

are  said  to  have  been  so  puffed  up  with  strength  and  haught- 
iness that  they  despised  the  gods,  and  undertook  to  build  the 
lofty  obelisk  which  is  called  Belus  or  Babylon.  But  the 
gods  defeated  tlieir  plans,  and  the  rubbish  took  the  name  of 
Babel.  For  up  to  that  time  men  had  relied  on  the  use  of 
one  language,  but  then  a various  and  discordant  use  of 
tongues  was  sent,  and  they  could  not  proceed.” 

Furthermore,  it  is  generally  believed  by  the  best  archa3- 
ologists  that  in  the  dilapidated  remains  of  the  Birs  Nimrud 
we  have  the  remains  of  the  Temple  of  Belus,  described  by 
Herodotus,  and  that  this  Temple  of  Belus  was  erected  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  on  the  very  foundations  of  the  identical 
Tower  of  Babel,  or  the  ancient  Borsippa,  which  means 
“Confusion  of  Tongues.” 

The  Jewish  Talmudists  have  always  asserted  that  the  true 
site  of  the  Tower  of  Babel  was  at  Borsippa  (the  Biris  Nim- 
rud), which  is  seven  miles  and  a half  from  the  northern  ruins 
of  Babylon.  Then,  the  French  expedition  to  Mesopotamia 
found  at  Birs  Nimrud  a clay  cake,  dated  from  Barsip  the 
30th  day  of  the  6th  month  of  the  16th  year  of  Nabonid,  and 
this  discovery  confirmed  the  hypothesis  that  the  Birs  Nim- 
rud contained  the  remains  of  the  Borsippa,  or  Tower  of 
Babel. 

And  now  the  evidence  has  been  completed  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  “Borsippa  Inscription”  in  cuneiform  charac- 
ters, made  by  order  of  Nebuchadnezzar  who  rebuilt  Bor- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES.  1 1 7 

sippa,  which  means  the  Temple  or  Tower  of  Confusion.’- 
The  translation  of  this  inscription  was  made  by  Dr.  Oppert, 
the  celebrated  German  Egyptologist.  I select  from  it  as 
much  as  relates  to  the  question  before  us : “We  say  of  this 

edihce,  the  house  of  the  Seven  Lights  of  the  Earth,  the 
most  ancient  monument  of  Borsippa:  A former  king  built  it 
(they  reckon  42  ages),  but  he  did  not  complete  it.  Since  a 
remote  time  people  had  abandoned  it,  without  order  ex- 
pressing their  words.  Since  that  time,  the  earthquake  and 
the  thunder  had  dispersed  the  sun-dried  clay ; the  bricks  of 
the  casing  had  been  split,  and  the  earth  of  the  interior  scat- 
tered in  heaps.  Merodach,  the  great  lord,  excited  my  mind 
to  repair  this  building.  I did  not  change  the  site,  nor  did  I 
take  away  the  foundation-stone.  In  a fortunate  month,  an 
auspicious  day,  I undertook  to  build  porticoes  around  the 
crude  brick  masses,  and  the  casings  of  burnt  bricks.  I 
adapted  the  circuits.  I put  the  inscription  of  my  name  in 
the  Kitir  of  the  porticoes.”  Does  the  skeptic  now  tiy  to 
raise  the  laugh  at  Moses  and  his  Tower  of  Babel,  and  the 
Confusion  of  Tongues  from  whence  it  derived  its  name? 
There  are  the  ruins,  there  is  the  testimony  of  ISTebuchadnez- 
zar,  and  there  are  the  owls  amid  the  ruins  whose  solemn 
stupidity  are  a fit  emblem  of  his  mental  obtuseness. 

In  regard  to  the  actual  facts  of  the  Dispersion  as  given 
in  Chap.  x.  of  Genesis,  Rawlinson  remarks  that  it  is  a chap- 
ter of  wonderful  grasp,  and  still  more  wonderful  accuracy, 
in  which  we  have  a sketch  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  their 
ethnic  affinities,  and  to  some  extent  their  geographical  posi- 


ii8 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


tion  and  boundaries.  Tlie  Toldoth  Beni  Noah  (generations 
of  Noah)  has  extorted  the  admiration  of  modern  ethnolo- 
gists, who  continually  find  in  it  anticipations  of  their  great- 
est discoveries.  For  instance,  in  the  very  second  verse  the 
great  discovery  of  Schlegel,  which  the  word  Indo-European 
embodies — the  affinity  of  the  principal  nations  of  Europe 
with  Aryan  or  Indo-Persic  stock — is  sufficiently  indicated 
by  the  conjunction  of  the  Madai  or  Medes  (whose  native 
name  was  Mada)  with  Gomer  or  the  Cymry,  and  Javan  or 
the  lonians.  Again,  one  of  the  most  recent  and  unexpected 
results  of  modern  linguistic  inquiry  is  the  proof  which  it  has 
furnished  of  an  ethnic  connection  between  the  Ethiopians 
or  Cushites  who  adjoined  on  Egypt,  and  the  primitive  inhab- 
itants of  Babylonia.  In  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis  we 
find  this  truth  thus  briefly  but  clearly  stated,  ‘‘And  Cush 
begat  Nimrod,”  the  “beginning  of  whose  kingdom  was 
Babel.”  So  we  have  had  it  recently  made  evident  from  the 
same  monuments,  that  “out  of  the  land  went  forth  Asshur, 
and  builded  Nineveh,” — or  that  the  Semitic  Assyrians  pro- 
ceeded from  Babylonia  and  founded  Nineveh  long  after  the 
Cushite  foundation  of  Babylon.  Again,  the  Hamitic  descent 
of  the  early  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  which  had  often  been 
called  in  question,  has  recentl}^  come  to  be  looked  upon  as 
almost  certain,  apart  from  the  evidence  of  Scripture ; and 
the  double  mention  of  Sheba,  both  among  the  sons  of  Ham, 
and  also  among  those  of  Shem,  has  been  illustrated  b}^  the 
discovery  that  there  are  two  races  of  Arabs,  one  (the  Jokta- 
nian)  Semitic,  the  other  (Himyaric)  Cushite  or  Ethiopic.  (See 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


II9 

Rawlinson’s  “Historical  Evidences,”  pp.  71,  72.)  Finally, 
in  a paper  published  in  the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society, 
Sir  H.  Eavvlinson  remarks  that  “the  Toldoth  Beni  Noah” 
is  undoubtedly  the  most  authentic  record  we  possess  of  the 
affiliations  of  those  branches  of  the  human  race  which 
sprang  from  the  triple  stock  of  “Noachidse.”  And  further, 
“If  we  were  guided  by  the  mere  intersection  of  linguistic 
paths,  and  independent  of  all  references  to  the  Bible,  we 
should  be  led  to  fix  upon  the  plains  of  Sliinar,  called  an- 
ciently Babylonia,  as  the  focus  from  whence  the  various 
lines  have  radiated.” 

The  Bondage  in  Egypt  was  another  notable  event  in 
Jewish  history,  and  one  likely  to  leave  a lasting  impression, 
not  only  on  the  nation’s  memorj^,  but  also  on  their  literature, 
their  language,  and  even  their  customs. 

It  is  a fact  well  known  to  oriental  scholars  that  there 
are  quite  a number  of  Egyptian  words  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Pharaoh  is  the  Egyptian  for  “the  Sun,”  and  this  was  a title 
borne  by  the  Egyptian  monarchs  from  very  early  times. 
Potiphar  an  Egyptian  word  which  means  “belongingto 
the  Sun ; ” it  is  a name  common  on  the  monuments  of  Egypt, 
and  specially  appropriated  to  a priest  of  On,  or  Heliopolis, 
Asenath  is  the  Egyptian  for  “worshiper  of  Neith,”  an 
Egyptian  deity.  Zaphnath-Paaneali^  the  name  which  Pha- 
raoh gave  to  Joseph,  means  “sustainer  of  the  age,”  or  as 
Jerome  freely  translates  it  in  the  vulgate,  “ salvator  mundi.” 
Moses  is  unquestionably  an  Egyptian  name,  since  it  was 
selected  by  Pharaoh’s  daughter  “because  he  was  drawn  out 


120 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


of  the  water.”  Mo  is  the  Egyptian  for  “ watei*,”  and  oushe 
means  “to  save.”  Many  other  examples  might  he  given  ; 
these  will  siitSce  our  purpose. 

The  writer  of  the  Pentateuch  manifests  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  geography,  the  natural  history,  and 
the  ethology  of  Egypt.  The  Egyptian  towns  mentioned  hy 
Moses  are  all  recognizable,  and  are  even  well  known  places 
to  the  modern  Egyptologist.  Pithom  is  the  Patumus  of 
Herodotus.  Bameses  is  the  Beth-Rameses  of  which  a de- 
scription is  given  in  a hieratic  papyiTis  of  the  18th  or  19th 
dynasty.  Zoan^  the  Tan  is  of  the  LXX.,  whence  the  “ Ta- 
niticnome”  of  Herodotus,  is  the  modern  Zan,  evidently  a 
great  town  in  the  time  of  the  Ramesside  monarchs.  Mig- 
dol  is  the  Migdolus  of  Hecataeus;  it  retains  its  names  in  the 
Itenerary  of  Antonine,  and  appears  in  the  position  assigned 
it  by  Moses,  on  the  north-east  frontier,  near  Pelasium.  Of 
On  ov  An,  “the  city  of  the  Sun,”  called  in  Greek  Heliopo- 
lis, nothing  need  be  said ; the  instance  is  familiar.  The 
correctness  of  his  allusions  to  the  natural  products  of  the 
country, — its  wheat  and  rye  and  barley  and  flax  and  palm 
trees;  and  especially  his  intimate  knowledge  of  the  manners 
and  customs  of  the  ancient  Egyptians,  has  never  been  ques- 
tioned. “The  position  of  the  Egyptians  with  regard  to 
foreigners — their  separation  from  them,  yet  the  allowance 
of  them  in  the  countiy — their  special  hatred  of  shepherds, 
the  suspicion  of  the  strangers  from  Palestine  as  spies — their 
internal  government,  its  settled  character,  the  power  of  the 
King,  the  influence  of  the  Priests,  the  great  works,  the  em- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


I2I 


ploj^ment  of  foreigners  in  their  construction,  the  use  of 
bricks,  and  of  bricks  with  straw  in  them,  the  taskmasters, 
the  embalming  of  dead  bodies,  the  consequent  importation 
of  spices,  the  violent  mourning,  the  fighting  with  horses 
and  chariots,— these  are  a few  out  of  the  many  points  which 
may  be  noted  as  proving  the  intimate  knowledge  of  Egyp- 
tian manners  and  customs  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch.”  (EawlinsoiVs  “Historical Evidences,”  pp.  290, 
291.)  Some  of  these  customs,  as  the  embalming  of  the  dead, 
the  employment  of  mourners  to  sing  plaintive  dirges  in 
honor  of  the  departed,  were  adopted  by  the  Hebrews,  and 
are  seen  in  subsequent  j^ears. 

This  historic  period  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrew  nation 
does  not  rest  on  tradition  alone.  It  has  received  a striking 
verification  in  the  recent  discovery  of  a painting  which  is 
known  to  have  been  coeval  with  the  birth  of  Moses.  The 
painting  was  found  on  the  walls  of  the  Tomb  of  the  Pha- 
raohs under  the  great  temple  at  Karnak,  and  copied  by 
Eosselini,  the  first  or  nearly  the  first  explorer  of  these  won- 
derful remains.  An  engraving  of  this  striking  picture  is 
given  in  vol.  ii.  p.  182  of  Kavvlinson’s  “Herodotus.”  This 
painting  is  a real  commentary  on  the  first  chapter  of  Exo- 
dus, and  places  the  Israelites  before  us  ac.tually  engaged  in 
“hard  bondage  in  mortar  and  brick,”  which  Moses  saw  with 
so  much  indignation.  An  Egyptian  taskmaster  is  set  over 
them  with  a rod  in  his  hand.  The  diversity  of  countenance 
as  well  as  color,  so  wonderfully  preserved  for  3300  years, 
distinguishes  the  oppressed  Israelitish  slave ; and  the  process 


122 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


of  brick  in  akin  O’  is  seen  from  tlie  clio’,^in<y  of  the  clay  to  the 
time  ‘‘the  tale  of  bricks”  is  coimted.  Their  countenances 
are  as  perfectly  Jewish  as  those  of  any  old  clothesrnan  who 
now  perambulates  the  streets  of  London.  I*^either  Law- 
rence nor  Jackson  could  have  painted  more  real  Jews,  the 
features  are  so  changeless  and  so  peculiar  to  the  people. 
And  then  their  occupation,  the  process  of  brickmaking  in 
its  various  stages,  their  limbs  bespattered  with  mud,  and  the 
Egyptian  taskmaster  with  his  scourge,  all  seem  a decisive 
evidence,  not  only  of  the  Captivity,  but  of  all  the  circum- 
stances narrated  by  Moses.  In  the  original  painting  the 
Egyptians  are  presented  in  the  usual  ruddy  color,  the  Jews 
are  painted  in  ^ sallower  color,  and  when  we  remember  that 
in  the  other  subjects  which  are  represented  by  painting  in 
the  tombs  of  Egypt,  the  utmost  regard  is  paid  to  individual- 
ity, and  even  to  minuteness  in  all  the  accessories,  we  cannot 
doubt  the  accuracy  or  the  application  of  this  wonderful  dis- 
covery. 

In  relation  to  this  painting  the  London  Quarterly^  a high 
authorit}',  says:  “Rosselini’s  last  delivery  of  illustrations 

brings  vividly  before  us  those  Jevvs  who  were  captives  in 
Egypt  under  the  18th  dynasty,  and  previous  to  the  Exodus. 
Independent  of  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  phonetic  in- 
scriptions upon  the  picture  itself  that  they  are  Jews,  no 
cursory  observer  who  glances  at  the  lineaments  of  the  per- 
son can  fail  to  discover  their  identit}^  Tliese  Jews  are  em- 
ployed under  the  dynasty  of  the  very  kings  contemporary 
with  Moses  in  the  specific  kind  of  slave  work  which  both  he 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


123 


and  Manetlio  describe,  namely,  ‘ making  bricks.’  The  whole 
is  an  illustration  and  a contirmation  of  Exodus,  ch.  i.  11-14.” 

The  Exodus  was  unquestionably  the  great  event  in  the 
historv  of  the  Jews.  To  keep  it  in  remembrance  the  feast 

i 

of  the  Passover  was  instituted  as  a national  festival,  it  was 
observed  on  the  very  evening  of  their  departure,  and  has 
been  observed  ever  since  by  the  Jews  in  every  land.  You 
may  step  into  any  Jewish  synagogue  in  any  citj^  of  the 
world  on  the  14th  day  of  the  Hebrew  month  Nisan  (falling 
sometimes  in  the  latter  part  of  March,  and  sometimes  in  the 
early  part  of  April),  and  you  will  see  them  eating  the  Pas- 
chal Lamb  with  bitter  herbs  and  unleavened  bread,  just  as 
they  have  done  for  3350  years.  This  great  national  festival 
is  observed  by  the  Jews  as  a perpetual  memorial  of  the  Exo- 
dus from  Egypt,  just  as  the  Fourth  of  July  is  celebrated  by 
the  American  people  to  commemorate  the  Declaration  of 
Independence. 

Besides  this  perpetual  national  festival,  we  have  the 
testimony  of  Manetlio  and  Hecatmus  in  confirmation  of  the 
words  of  Moses.  The  latter  informs  us  that  ‘‘in  ancient 
times  Egypt  was  visited  with  a pestilence,  and  most  of  the 
people  referred  the  calamity  to  the  gods  whose  displeasure 
was  excited  because  there  were  so  many  foreigners  in  the 
land  who  neglected  the  worship  of  the  divinities.  The  na- 
tive inhabitants  therefore  determined  to  drive  them  out 
without  delay.  The  mass  of  them  fled  to  Judea.  This  col- 
on}^ was  led  by  a man  named  Moses,  who  was  distinguished 
b}^  his  prudence  and  courage.  He  took  possession  of  the 


124 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


country  and  founded  Jerusalem.  He  also  arranged  their 
civil  and  religious  affairs.”  The  most  striking  confirmation 
of  the  Scripture  account  of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  and  the 
sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  is  furnished  by  the  Sinaitic  In- 
scriptions which  have  lately  been  translated  by  the  Rev.  C. 
Forster,  an  eminent  oriental  scholar,  and  printed  in  his 
recent  work,  “ The  Voice  of  Israel  from  the  Rocks  of 
Sinai.”  * 

You  are  all  doubtless  familiar  with  the  route  which  it  is 
supposed  the  emancipated  tribes  of  Israel  took,  from  the 
head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  to  Mount  Sinai,  on  their  way  from 
Egypt  to  the  Land  of  Promise.  The  narratives  of  Moses 
and  the  traditions  of  the  Arabian  Tribes  alike  inform  us 
that  they  coasted  along  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Red  Sea, 
now  called  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  with  its  waters  on  the  right, 
and  the  rocks  which  form,  as  it  were,  the  roots  of  Sinai  on 
the  left,  till  they  turned  into  some  of  those  valleys  which 
lead  to  its  very  base. 

The  first  notice  of  these  strange  inscriptions  on  the 
rocks  in  an  uninhabited  and  uninhabitable  wilderness,  was 
written  in  the  sixth  century  by  a merchant  of  Alexandria 
in  Egypt,  named  Cosmas,  but  who  acquired  the  surname  of 
Indicopleustes  on  account  of  a voyage  he  made  to  India, 
532  A.  D.  He  published  the  account  of  these  inscriptions  in 


* This  work  is  now  included  in  his  three  volumes  on  “ The 
One  Primeval  Language  traced  experimentally  through  Ancient 
Inscriptions,  etc.”  Richard  Bentley,  London.  The  students  will 
find  these  volumes  in  the  University  Library. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


125 


a work  in  Greek  entitled  ‘‘  Christian  Topography,”  and  he 
ascribed  them,  conjectn rally,  to  the  age  of  Moses  and  the 
Exodus. 

Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  the  distinguished  American  Bib- 
lical scholar,  and  his  companion  Mr.  E.  Smith,  visited  this 
region  in  1830-7.  Dr.  Robinson  gives  an  account  of  these 
Sinaitic  Inscriptions  in  his  “ Biblical  Researches,”  vol.  i. 
pp.  552-556.  He  states  that  they  are  cut  upon  the  rocks  on  all 
tlie  routes  leading  from  the  west,  in  unknown  characters 
which  are  everywhere  the  same,  but  interspersed  with  quaint 
tigures  of  men,  beasts,  and  birds.  The  spot  where  they 
exist  in  the  greatest  numbers  is  the  “Wady  Mokatteb,”  or 
“The  Written  Valley,”  through  which  the  usual  route  to 
Sinai  passes  before  reaching  Wado  Feiran.  Here  they  are 
found  on  the  rock  by  thousands.  The  characters  are  every- 
where the  same,  but  hitherto  (1839)  have  remained  unde- 
ciphered in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  ablest  palaeographers. 
Copies  of  these  inscriptions  were  made  by  Mr.  G.  F.  Grey, 
and  published  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of 
Literature  in  1850,  and  very  minute  accounts  are  furnished 
by  Lieut.  Wellsted  and  Buckhardt  in  their  “ Travels  in 
Arabia.” 

Mr.  Forster  had  already  signalized  himself  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  Hamyaritic  Alphabet,  and  the  translation  of 
Hamyaiatic  Inscriptions  found  at  Hbn  Ghorab;  and  his  at- 
tention was  now  directed  to  the  Sinaitic  Inscriptions.  He 
found  that  the  alphabet  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Masara 
and  Rosetta  stone,  and  that  the  language  was  not  Hebrew 


126 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


but  ancient  Egyptian,  the  vernacular  of  the  country  and  of 
the  ]'eople  among  whom  the  Israelites  had  sojourned  for 
eight  generations,  or  two  liundred  and  fifteen  years. 

And,  now,  after  these  preliminary  statements  w'hich  go 
to  show  that  these  inscriptions  are  not  forgeries,  as  some 
skeptics  would  insinuate,  what  is  their  testimony?  They 
confirm, — 

1.  The  Scripture  account  of  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea, 
and  the  defeat  of  Pharaoh  in  his  pursuit.  2.  The  miracu- 
lous supply  of  the  Hebrew  host  by  “Feathered  Fowls” 
from  the  sea,  incorrectly  translated  “quail,”  but  more  cor- 
rectly the  “ casarca,”  or  ruddy  goose.  3.  The  miraculous 
supply  of  water  from  the  hard  granite  rock,  and  the  healing 
of  the  bitter  waters  of  Marah  with  a branch.  4.  The  prayer 
of  Moses  when  his  hands  were  sustained  by  Hur.  5.  The 
biting  of  the  people  by  fiery  serpents,  and  the  healing  of  the 
people  by  the  brazen  serpent  sustained  on  a pole.  6.  The 
obstinacy,  stubbornness,  and  intractibility  of  the  people 
generally,  is  represented  in  several  of  the  inscriptions  by 
“the  wild  ass.” 

You  wlio  are  curious  in  these  matters  may  find  fac- 
similes of  some  of  the  Sinaitic  Inscriptions,  and  also  Mr. 
Forster’s  translations  of  thirty-eight  of  these  inscriptions  in 
Cassel’s  “Biblical  Educator,”  vol.  i.  pp.  170-174.  The  notes 
in  regard  to  the  “ Winged  Fowls  ” brought  up  from  the  sea 
by  the  strong  wind,  and  as  tlie  sands  of  the  sea  in  numbers, 
are  full  of  instruction.  The  whole  study  impresses  us  witli 
the  conviction  that  as  the  natural  history  of  the  earth  is 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


127 


written  in  fosj»il  liieroglypliics  upon  the  buried  rocks,  so  the 
religious  history  of  our  race  is  written  in  ancient  characters 
on  the  rocks  above  the  ground. 


LECTURE  VII. 


When  the  Most  High  di'vided  to  the  nations  their  inheritance^  Tvhen 
he  separated  the  sons  of  Adani^  he  set  the  people  according  to  the  number  of 
the  childreii  of  Israel.  For  the  Lord'^s portion  is  his  people  ; Jacob  is  the 
lot  of  his  inherita7ice.  He  found  him  in  the  desert  land^  and  m the  waste 
howling  wilderness he  led  hun  about ^ he  instructed  him^  he  kept  him  as 
the  apple  of  his  eye.  As  an  eagle  stirreth  up  her  nest^  jluttereth  over  her 
youngy  spreadeth  abroad  her  wingSy  taketh  theiUy  beareth  them  on  her 
whigs  : So  the  Lork  alone  did  lead  hhuy  and  there  was  no  strange  god 

vjithhim. — Deuteronomy  xxxii.  8~i2. 

The  period  of  sacred  history  which  we  are  to  consider 
this  afternoon,  is  that  interval  between  1451  and  975  b.  c.,  a 
period  of  476  years,  commencins:  with  the  death  of  Moses 
and  extending  to  the  end  of  Solomon’s  reign.  The  record 
of  this  period  is  contained  in  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  part  of  Kings  and  Chronicles.  This  period 
embraces  the  extremes  of  obscurity  and  splendor,  of  debase- 
ment and  exaltation,  of  degeneracy  and  piety,  in  the  history 
of  the  Hebrew  race. 

Immediately  after  the  death  of  Moses,  the  Israelites, 
under  the  leadership  of  Joshua,  crossed  over  Jordan  and 
took  possession  of  Gilgal  in  the  plains  of  Jericho,  and  for 
three  hundred  years  afterwards  were  engaged  in  a perpetual 
strife  for  a bare  existence  with  the  petty  tribes  who  held 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


129 


possession  of  Canaan,  and  the}"  seemed,  finally,  just  on  the 
point  of  surrendering,  and  being  as  a distinct  nation  entirely 
crushed  out,  when  they  were  suddenly  raised  up  by  the  hand 
of  providence,  and  carried  forward  with  rapidity  to  the 
highest  pitch  of  national  greatness,  the  noontide  splendor  of 
the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  under  Saul  and  David  and 
Solomon. 

During  the  latter  part  of  this  three  hundred  years  of  de- 
basement and  suffering,  the  Israelites  were  compelled  to  hide 
themselves  in  caves  and  thickets  and  rocks  and  high  places 
and  pits;  many  of  them  fled  over  Jordan  to  the  land  of 
Gad  and  of  Gilgal  because  of  the  Philistines ; and  there  was 
neither  sword  nor  spear  nor  armor  in  the  hands  of  the 
Israelites,  nor  even  a smith  in  all  their  tribes  to  make  an  im- 
plement of  war;  so  much  had  thej^  been  despoiled  and 
trodden  underfoot  by  the  Philistines.  But  during  the  life- 
time of  one  man  they  were  rendered  victorious  over  the 
Philistines,  the  Moabites,  the  Syrians,  the  Ammonites,  and 
the  Amalekites.  The  very  men  who  had  been  compelled  to 
hide  themselves,  unarmed,  in  caves  and  pits,  eventually  saw 
their  own  garrisons  in  possession  of  Damascus,  the  northern 
extremity  of  the  land,  and  throughout  all  Eden  in  the  east, 
and  the  dominion  of  David  extended  to  the  Euphrates. 

Four  hundred  years  of  these  four  hundred  and  seventy- 
six  may  be  regarded  as  the  dark  ages  ” of  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth.  The  Israelites  were  fugitives  from  slavery. 
They  had  been  retained  by  the  Egyptians  for  two  hundred 

and  fifteen  years  in  the  most  cruel  and  abject  bodage.  They 
J 


130 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


were  consigned  to  the  meanest  and  most  degrading  toil, 
doing  the  veriest  drudgery  of  the  Eg.yptians,  while  the  most 
unreasonable  and  excessive  demands  were  made  and  exacted 
with  rigorous  cruelty.  There  was  therefore  no  place  and  no 
opportunit}^  for  culture  or  i-etinement,  or  even  moral  disci- 
pline. And  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  if  under  these  cir- 
cumstances there  was  found  amongst  the  Israelites  much  of 
the  ignorance  and  demoralization  and  barbarity  which  are 
the  inevitable  consequences  of  slavery.  The  Israelites 
would  also  partake  very  much  of  the  character  of  the  semi- 
barbaric  tribes  by  which  they  were  surrounded  in  the  desert 
of  Arabia,  and  the  land  of  Canaan.  In  tlieir  social  life  the}' 
were  contaminated  by  their  vices;  in  their  religious  life  they 
were  continually  drawn  into  idolatry,  and  worshiped  the 
gods  of  the  suiTounding  heathen  tribes;  in  the  method  in 
which  they  ^conducted  their  wars,  and  improved  their  vic- 
tories, they  were  necessaril}',  we  might  almost  say,  assimila- 
ted to  the  savage  and  inhuman  spirit  of  those  against  whom 
they  had  to  contend. 

It  is  amazing  how  the  perverse  spirit  of  modern  infidel- 
ity has  expended  its  little  stock  of  sympathy  upon  the  strong, 
settled,  warlike  people  who  were  in  possession  of  Canaan, 
and  arrayed  itself,  with  its  heavy  stock  of  bitterness,  against 
the  comparatively  unarmed  Israelites,  who  were  barely 
struggling  for  a place  on  which  to  j)lant  their  feet,  depasture 
their  cattle,  and  rear  a home. 

These  skeptics  never  take  into  their  account  the  facttliat 
these  Canaanitish  nations  were  more  numerous  and  far  more 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


I3I 

powerful  than  the  Jews;  that  they  were  better  armed  and 
disciplined,  and  more  experienced  in  the  arts  of  war;  and 
that  they  dwelt  in  fortified  cities  with  all  the  resources  of  the 
coiintiy  at  tlieir  command,  while  the  Jews  were  compara- 
tively unai-med,  undisciplined,  and  unaccustomed  to  war. 
In  the  time  of  Deborah  and  Barak  tliere  was  not  a sword  or 
a spear  seen  amongst  JO.OOvO  in  Israel.  So  disproportioned 
were  the  situation  and  forces  of  the  Israelites  to  that  of  tlie 
(Janaanities,  that  had  the  former  looked  at  this  aspect  in  the 
case,  they  must  have  regarded  the  result  with  considerable 
apprehension.  C(n*tainly  the  Canaanitish  nations  regarded  as 
a settled,  valiant,  warlike  people,  may  be  well  spared  the  pit}" 
which  perverse  minds  seem  to  bestow  upon  them,  as  though 
they  were  like  sheep  driven  to  the  slaughter  before  the 
Israelites.  The  disproportion  in  numbers,  in  arms,  in  dis- 
cipline, in  resources,  was  so  much  in  favor  of  the  Canaanites, 
and  against  the  Israelites,  that  they  never  could  have  secured 
a footing,  or  maintained  themselves  in  the  land,  but  for  the 
direct  interposition  of  Divine  providence.  Sometimes  the 
victories  of  the  Israelites  were  secured  by  a mere  handful  of 
men,  as  at  the  taking  of  Jericho, and  as  in  the  utter  discomfiture 
and  overthrow  of  the  Midianitish  host  by  a band  of  300  men ; 
while  the  greatest  victory  evei*  achieved  by  the  Israelites  was 
over  an  army  of  the  Philistines  consisting  of  ‘‘30,000  char- 
iots, 6000  horsemen,  and  people  as  the  sands  of  the  sea.-- 
when  the  Israelites  were  armed  each  with  his  plowshare  and 
his  coulter  and  axe  and  fork  and  ox-goad,  and  there  was  not 
a sword  or  spear  in  the  hands  of  an  Isj-aelite,  save  Saul  and 
Jonathan. 


132 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


These  Infidels  in  their  morbid  sympathy  for  the  Ca- 
naanites  take  no  account  either  of  the  fact  that  the  Land  of 
Canaan  belonged  by  all  prior  and  natural  and  unquestion- 
able right  to  the  Israelites.  It  was  theirs  by  the  original 
gift  of  God  to  Abraham  and  his  posterity.  It  was  theirs  by 
an  undisturbed  possession  of  more  than  two  hundred  3^ears, 
from  the  time  of  Abraham  to  the  departure  into  Egypt.  It 
was  theirs  because  their  fathers  had  depastured  their  flocks 
and  digged  wells  there,  which  in  ancient  times  established 
an  acknowledged  right  in  unoccupied  lands.  This  claim 
had  never  been  relinquished,  and  was  well  known  to  the 
Canaanites. 

So  that  the  Jews  were  only  returning  to  their  own 
land,  and  to  the  sepulchers  of  their  fathers,  where  Abraham 
and  Isaac  and  Jacob  were  buried,  and  they  were  bearing 
with  them  the  bones  of  Joseph,  that  he  might  also,  as  he  de- 
sired, ‘‘sleep  with  his  fathers.”  They  were  not  coming  as 
invaders  or  usurpers,  to  drive  out  the  original  or  rightful 
owners  of  the  soil,  but  they  were  coming  to  repossess  their 
original  home.  The}^  Avere  also  returning  comparatively 
unarmed,  and  these  very  Ammorites  were  the  first  to  fall 
upon  and  attack  an  innocent,  harmless,  defenseless  people 
seeking  their  own  rights.  Finally,  the  skeptic  never  thinks 
of  the  cruelty  and  uncleanness  and  brutality  and  demon- 
like  character  of  these  Canaanites.  Their  idol-worship  Avas 
celebrated  by  the  most  horrid  and  revolting  rites.  They 
made  their  children  pass  through  the  fires  to  Moloch,  and 
they  were  guilty  of  the  most  impure  and  unnatural  crimes, 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


133 


— crimes  for  which  the  Sodomites  were  swept  from  the  face 
of  the  earth.  And  yet  these  are  the  people  the  Infidel  hugs 
to  his  bosom,  while  he  vents  all  his  bitterness  and  hate  upon 
the  poor  sulFering  Israelites,  just  escaped  from  two  hundred 
years  hard  servitude,  and  now  returning,  poor  and  dispirited, 
to  their  ancient  home.  Still  it  is  just  like  Infidelity,  for  its 
sympathies  are  with  the  worst  and  basest  of  men. 

It  has  been  further  objected,  that  even  supposing  the 
Israelites  had  a right  to  the  land,  yet  in  possessing  them- 
selves of  it,  they  practised  many  barbarities  and  cruelties,  as, 
for  example,  when  12,000  of  the  inhabitants  of  Ai  were  slain, 
the  king  made  a prisoner,  put  to  the  sword,  hung  upon  a tree 
till  evening,  and  then  buried  under  a heap  of  stones;  and 
that  other  instance  when  Adoni-bezek  was  taken,  10,000  of 
his  people  slain,  and  his  toes  and  fingers  were  cut  oft. 

Let  us  at  once  grant  that  these  were  acts  of  cruelty 
which  in  our  time  must  be  regarded  as  barbaric  in  the  ex- 
treme. At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  in 
those  times  all  wars  were  carried  on  with  great  barbaritj^; 
and  there  is  no  wonder  if  the  Jews,  smarting  under  the  in- 
juries and  cruelties  which  these  nations  had  inflicted  upon 
them,  should  be  tempted  to  carry  on  war  very  much  in  the 
same  spirit,  and  to  act  towards  the  conquered  very  much  in 
the  same  maimer  as  they  had  treated  them.  When  it  is 
mentioned  by  the  Infidel  to  the  dishonor  of  the  Hebrews 
that  they  cut  off  the  thumbs  and  great  toes  of  a captured 
king,  he  ought  to  state  that  that  same  king  had  during 
his  days  of  power  cut  off  the  thumbs  and  toes  of  seventy 


134 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


kino's,  and  compelled  them  to  gather  up  their  food  from 
under  his  table  like  dogs.  And  when  he  tells  us  that  the 
Israelites  were  guilty  of  the  promiscuous  slaughter  of  the 
inhabitants  of  some  of  the  cities  they  conquered,  he  ought 
also  to  state  that  this  was  the  uniform  i)olicy  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  towards  the  Israelites.  They  trampled  down  their 
lields,  seized  the  fruit  of  their  grounds,  took  away  their 
cattle,  slaughtered  them  indiscriminately,  and  so  grievously 
oppressed  those  who  were  permitted  to  live  that  they  sought 
refuge  from  their  fury  in  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth. 

These  facts  are  not  mentioned  to  justify  revenge,  or  to 
plead  for  the  barbaric  practices  of  that  age,  but  to  show  the 
unfairness  of  attempting  to  judge  a people  just  emerging 
from  slavery  with  its  ignorance  and  degredation,  and  who 
were  everywhere  surrounded  by  a cruel  and  barbaric  people, 
by  the  pure  morality  of  Christianity,  or  the  light  and  civili- 
zation of  the  nineteenth  century.  ‘‘  The  equity  of  history 
demands  that  men  be  tried  by  the  standards  of  their  times,’’'' 

But  it  is  replied  that  this  ‘‘war  of  extermination” 
waged  against  the  Canaanitish  nation  was  carried  on  at  the 
command  of  God;  and  as  this  is  the  great  argument  of 
modern  Infidelity,  we  shall  give  to  it  a more  careful  consid- 
eration. You  who  have  read  Thomas  Paine’s  “Age  of 
Reason  ” may  remember  the  use  which  he  makes  of  these 
facts,  and  how  on  this  account  he  denounces  the  Bible  as  a 
“book  of  lies,  blasphemy,  and  wickedness.”  In  our  own 
times  we  have  heard  silly  persons  who  under  the  influence 
of  Spiritualism  had  reached  the  last  stage  of  lunacy,  sa3% 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


135 


‘‘  If  this  be  the  God  of  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  I do  not 
want  such  a God ! ” 

]N"ow,  that  the  Hebrews  were  commanded  to  “drive  out 
the  inhabitants  of  the  land,”  we  at  once  admit,  but  that  this 
means  a “ war  of  extermination,”  we  promptly  deny. 

Let  us  read  the  command  which  was  given  to  the  He- 
brews on  this  head.  The  first  command  was  given  in 
Exodus,  ch.  xxxiv.  11-17.  “ Observe What  I command  thee 

this  day:  behold,  I drive  out  (not,  thou  shalt  drive  out,  but 

I drive  out)  before  thee  the  Ammorite Take  heed  to 

thyself,  lest  thou  make  a covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land  whither  thou  goest,  lest  they  become  a snare  unto 
thee.  But  ye  shall  destroy  their  altars,  break  their  images, 
and  cut  down  their  groves,”  etc.  This  command  is  reiterated 
in  Xumbers,  ch.  xxx.  52-55.  “Then  shall  ye  drive  out  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  land....  And  ye  shall  dispossess  the 
inhabitants  of  the  land,  and  dwell  therein;  for  I have 
given  you  the  land  to  possess  it,”  etc.  Here  is  no  command 
to  exterminate  the  inhabitants;  the  command  is  to  “drive 
them  out,”  to  “ dispossess  them,”  to  “take  possession  of  the 
land.’ 

1 . Because  the  land  was  theirs.  It  had  been  given  to 
their  father  Abraham  four  hundred  years  before,  and  had 
been  held  in  undisputed  possession  by  the  patriarchs  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,  for  upwards  of  two  hundred  years; 
and  God  had  again  distinctly  assured  them  that  the  land  was 
their  own  possession.  Here,  then,  was  a title  to  Canaan 
which  was  indisputable  and  unalienable.  God,  to  whom  the 


136 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


earth  belongs,  had  given  it  to  them  when  unoccupied;  and 
by  a prior  occupancy  of  more  than  two  hundred  years,  and 
by  having  digged  wells  therein,  they  had  acquired  what 
amongst  all  nations  was  a clear,  legal,  indefeasible  right  and 
title  to  the  land ; it  was  therefore  theirs. 

2.  They  were  commanded  to  drive  out  the  Canaanites, 
because  God  sought  to  subserve  great  moral  ends  by  placing 
the  Israelites  in  Canaan  as  a distinct  and  isolate  people. 

God  had  originally  separated  Abraham  and  his  seed  to 
be  his  people,  that  their  separate  national  existence  under  a 
Theocratic  government  might  be  a perpetual  witness  for 
God  in  the  earth;  and  that  they  might  be  instrumental  in 
preserving  and  diffusing  a pure  Theistic  religion  amongst 
the  nations.  So  that  in  them  God  designed  ultimately  to  in- 
struct and  bless  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  This  same 
purpose  was  unquestionably  before  the  mind  of  God  in 
settling  the  Israelites  in  Canaan. 

In  order  to  fulfill  this  end,  it  was  needful  that  they  should 
be  saved  from  falling  into  idol-worship.  The  Israelites  had, 
in  all  probability,  been  idolaters  in  Egypt,  and  the  polluting, 
sensual  orgies  with  which  idol-worship  was  celebrated,  had 
a peculiar  fascination  for  the  ignorant,  debased,  and  sensual 
mind.  Any  intercourse  with  the  idolatrous  nations  of 
Canaan,  would  have  been  a fatal  and  almost  certain  occasion 
of  the  Israelites  falling  again  into  that  sin,  as,  in  fact,  we 
find  in  their  subsequent  history  it  was.  In  order,  therefore, 
to  the  moral  elevation  of  tliis  people;  in  order  to  their  edu- 
cation in  a pure  Monotheistic  religion;  in  order  to  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


137 


foi*niation  of  a pure  character  which  should  exert  an  elevat- 
ing influence  upon  the  world,  it  was  indispensable  they 
should  live  a distinct  people.  Hence  it  was  that  they  were 
commanded  to  make  no  covenant  with  the  inhabitants,  lest 
it  should  be  a snare  to  them,  and  they  should  go  after  other 
gods.  Hence  it  was  they  were  commanded  to  pull  down 
their  altars,  break  their  images,  and  cut  down  their  groves, 
lest  they  be  tempted  to  idol-woi’ship.  Hence,  also,  it  was 
that  they  were  commanded  to  dispossess  the  inhabitants  and 
drive  them  out,  or  “ they  would  be  as  thorns  in  their  eyes 
and  goads  in  their  sides,”  and  under  the  influence  of  these 
associations  they  would  pollute  themselves  more  than  their 
fathers  had. 

There  were  also  geographical  reasons  (if  we  may  so 
designate  them)  why  the  Jews  should  be  settled  it  Canaan 
rather  than  any  other  part  of  the  globe.  The  Jewish  nation 
was,  in  the  purpose  of  God,  to  be  the  light  of  the  ancient 
world,  a grand  centre  of  light  whence  it  might  radiate. 
Amongst  this  nation  the  Messiah  was  to  appear;  He  who 
was  “the  desire  of  all  nations  was  to  be  born  here;  salva- 
tion was  to  go  out  from  Zion  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  God, 
therefore,  chose  the  land  of  J udea  to  be  the  grand  theatre  of 
all  these  redeeming  agencies,  because  it  was  the  centre  of 
the  world’s  population;  it  was  the  key  to  the  three  continents 
of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  and  immediately  accessible  to 
them  all ; while  three  seas,  the  great  highwa3^s  of  ancient 
and  modern  travel,  washed  her  feet.  Take  up  a map  of  the 
world  and  you  can  see,  in  a moment,  the  importance  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


138 

Syria  as  the  key  to  the  world’s  commerce,  and  you  ctin 
understand  the  jealousy  of  the  powers  of  Europe  at  this 
moment  lest  any  one  should  possess  themselves  of  this  key 
to  the  East  to  the  exclusion  of  all  tlie  rest. 

3.  A third  reason  why  the  Israelites  were  commanded 
to  drive  out  and  dispossess  these  inhabitants  was,  “the  in- 
iquity of  the  Ammorites  was  full.” 

In  addition  to  the  fact  that  in  dispossessing^  the  Am- 
morites they  were  taking  possession  of  their  own  land,  they 
were  also  employed,  in  the  providence  of  God,  as  the  in- 
struments of  a righteous  retribution,  and  the  agents  in 
accomplishing  what  had  now  become  a great  moral  necessity. 

Now,  the  history  of  the  human  race  clearly  proves  that 
nations,  as  well  as  individuals,  may  become  so  morally  cor- 
rupt as  to  be  beyond  all  redeeming  agencies,  and  their  ex- 
termination becomes  a great  moral  necessity";  just  as  the 
putrid  limb  demands  the  severities  of  tlie  surgeon’s  knife, 
and  its  excision  is  imperatively  demanded  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  body ; so  also  there  are  sometimes  members  of  the 
great  body  politic,  individuals,  sometimes  whole  tribes, 
whose  excision  is  demanded  in  order  to  preserve  human 
society  from  moral  putridity  and  rottenness.  As  in  that 
affecting  disease,  hydrophobia,  the  extinction  of  the  sufferer’s 
life  has  hitherto  been  regarded  an  imperative  necessity  to 
the  safety  of  those  around  him,  so  the  extinction  of  whole 
tribes  has  been  required  in  order  to  the  safety  of  the  sur- 
vivors. It  was  so  with  the  Thugs  in  India.  There  were  an 
association  of  robbers  and  murderers.  They  lived  only  on 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


139 


plunder,  and  it  was  a law  amongst  them  never  to  rob  until 
they  liad  first  murdered  their  victim.  The  British  govern- 
ment exhausted  every  expedient  of  a I'eformatory  and  re- 
straining character  to  no  purpose,  and  was  compelled  finally 
to  exterminate  them.  So  it  was  with  the  Antedeluvians,  and 
they  were  cut  ofl*  by  a flood.  So  it  was  with  the  Sodomites, 
and  they  were  devoured  by  fire.  So  it  was  with  the  Canaan- 
ites,  and  they  were  devoured  by  the  sword.  And  though 
war  is  indeed  a dread  alternative  and  a scourge  even  to  the 
conquerer,  yet  wars  and  pestilence  and  famine  and  earth- 
quakes are  the  punitive  resources  and  agencies  of  nature's 
God. 

Can  it  be  objected  that  it  is  contrary  to  Divine  justice  or 
mercy  that  a people  should  be  cut  oft*  indiscriminately,  from 
the  oldest  to  the  youngest,  since  this  is  done  by  plague  and 
famine  and  pestilence?  The  Asiatic  cholera  during  its  last 
visitation  swept  away  four  millions  of  human  beings  of  all 
ages,  forty  times  more,  in  all  probabilit}',  than  were  de- 
stroyed in  these  Canaanitish  wars.  But,  perhaps,  some  may 
reply.  That  resulted  from  the  violation  of  the  natural  laws 
of  hygiene.  Precisely  so;  but  what  did  tens  of  thousands 
of  these sulferers  know  about  “laws  of  hygiene  and  health ?” 
A"et  they  were  destroyed.  What  we  contend  is  that  the 
Canaanites  were  overthrown  for  violating  the  great  inoi’al 
laws  of  God’s  universe,  which  are  just  as  essential,  and  even 
more  essential,  to  the  existence  and  well-being  of  man  than 
laws  of  hygiene  and  health.  And  in  this  case  they  violated 
moral  law,  not  in  ignorance,  but  knowingly  and  deliber- 


140 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


ately,  while  the  sufferers  from  plague  and  pestilence  violated 
natural  law  in  ignorance. 

The  whole  objection  therefore  resolves  itself  into  this 
question,  Was  it  consistent  with  the  moral  government  of 
God  to  employ  human  agents  in  inflicting  His  penal  retri- 
butions upon  sinful  nations?  Our  answer  is,  Perfectly  con- 
sistent. Does  not  God  in  the  administration  of  His  moral 
government  of  the  world  always  employ  human  agency, 
yes,  even  in  inflicting  punishment?  Is  not  the  family  an 
institution  of  God,  and  has  not  God  committed  to  the  parent 
the  authority,  and  imposed  the  duty,  of  restraining  evil  ten- 
dencies by  correction  and  punishment?  Is  not  human  gov- 
ernment an  ordinance  of  God,  and  as  much  a part  of  God’s 
moral  government  as  the  natural  sequences  of  the  universe? 
In  human  governments  God  employs  men  to  punish  sin,  and 
has  even  committed  to  them  the  power  over  life  and  death. 
We  have  no  sympathy  whatever  with  that  morbid  condition 
of  public  sentiment  which  expends  all  its  sympathy  on 
criminals,  and  carries  sweetmeats  and  bouquets  to  the  cells 
of  murderers;  and  when  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law 
has  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  murderer  of  ten  men,  it  lifts  up 
its  hands  in  holy  horror  and  says  to  the  officers  of  justice. 
You  must  not  take  away  that  man’s  life,  5mu  have  no  right 
to,  it  is  a serious  thing  to  send  a man  into  eternity  unpre- 
pared! Yes  it  is,  and  when  that  villain  sent  ten  souls  into 
eternity  unprepared,  that  was  a serious  thing.  There  is  the 
blood  of  ten  precious  lives  upon  his  hands,  and  God  says, 
“ Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


I4I 

shed”  (Gen.  ix.  6).  But  nowadays  men  call  capital  punish- 
ment “legalized  murder,”  and  the  public  sympathy  is  more 
on  the  side  of  the  dark  blood-stained  villain,  than  on  the 
side  of  suffering  innocence,  and  eternal  right  and  justice. 

In  the  history  of  nations  we  can  clearly  see  how,  on  a 
large  scale,  God  has  employed  even  war  as  a chastisement 
of  a guiJty  nation.  The  expulsion  of  the  Moors,  the  most 
industrious  and  useful  inhabitants  of  the  Peninsula,  en- 
tailed weakness  and  civil  war  upon  Spain  for  centuries.  The 
atrocities  and  cruelties  of  Rome  produced  the  great  league  of 
which  William  of  Orange  was  the  head ; it  sharpened  the 
swords  of  Eugene  and  Marlborough,  and  closed  in  mourning 
the  reign  of  Louis  XY.  The  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew 
and  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Xantes  were  the  remote 
though  certain  causes  of  the  French  Revolution.  Who  will 
say  that  Oliver  Cromwell  was  not  a rod  in  the  hands  of  God 
to  chastise  the  perfidious  and  treacherous  Charles  and  his 
wicked  advisers  ? And  it  will  be  readily  granted  that  Wash- 
ington was  employed  to  rebuke  and  chastise  as  well  as  break 
tlie  insolence  of  British  power  and  oppression  in  this  conti- 
nent. The  entire  history  of  humanity  is  a historj^  of  the 
employment  of  human  agents  to  execute  the  righteous  retri- 
butions of  heaven;  and  we  should  never  have  heard  any 
objection  to  its  being  employed  in  the  case  of  the  Canaan- 
ites,  were  it  not  because  of  the  wicked  hostility  of  Infidelity 
to  anything  which  happens  to  be  recorded  in  the  Bible. 

Having  now  replied  to  the  strongest  argument  Infidelity 
has  ever  been  able  to  urge  against  the  Old  Testament  his- 


142 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


tory  as  a record  of  God's  interpositions  in  the  moral  history 
of  oiir  race,  we  now  proceed  to  a further  consideration  of 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Bible  history  of  tins 
period  of  475  years. 

The  records  of  this  period  are  contained  in  the  Books  of 
Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  part  of  Kings  and  Chronicles; 
and  the  question  we  have  now  immediately  to  consider  is, 
Have  we  in  these  books  a reliable,  truthful,  authentic  his- 
toiw  of  those  times?  Tiiis^  present  is  our  sole  and  only 
question. 

This  question  is  of  course  answered  by  Thomas  Paine 
in  the  negative.  He  says,  ‘*No,  the  books  are  anonymous, 
therefore  they  are  without  authority.”  The  assumption  is, 
these  books  are  anonymous;  the  argument  is,  because  a book 
is  anonymous  it  must  necessarily  be  untrue.  Kow  we  shall 
show  that  this  assumption  is  untrue,  and  this  argument  is 
illogical. 

1.  The  argument  that  because  a book  is  anonymous, 
that  is,  because  we  are  not  sure  who  wrote  it,  therefore  it  is 
not  true,  is  a fallacious  and  indeed  a ridiculous  argument. 

There  is  a book  in  England,  commonly  known  as  “the 
Doomsday  Book,”  and  written  many  hundred  years  ago, 
containing  a survey  of  all  the  lands  in  England,  their 
boundaries,  owners,  etc.  This  book  is  in  all  courts  of  Jaw 
held  as  of  the  highest  authority  as  to  matters  of  fact  related 
in  it.  And  yet  the  book  is  anonymous,  no  man  can  tell  who 
was  its  author.  A special  i)leader  of  the  Thomas  Paine 
type  would  make  a great  argument  of  this  in  the  High  Court 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


143 


of  Chancery.  Oh  that  book  is  anonymous,  therefore  it  is 
untrue!  The  Reviews  are  all  anonymous  books,  but  do  we 
or  will  posterity  esteem  them  as  of  no  authorit}'?  On  the 
contrary,  the}^  are  now  quoted  as  the  highest  authorit\^,  and 
will  in  all  succeeding  ages  be  received  as  authoritative  rec- 
ords of  the  civil  and  military  and  political  history  of  the 
nation;  so  little  foundation  is  there  for  our  being  startled 
with  this  cry,  The}"  are  anonymous,  therefore  they  are  with- 
out authority  I The  Turin  papyrus  on  which  we  have  the 
history  of  Eg3"ptian  Kings,  even  from  the  time  of  the  Great 
Raineses,  are  anonymous.  The  Parian  marbles,  or,  as  they 
are  sometimes  called,  the  Arundelian  marbles,  found  in  the 
isle  of  Paros,  on  which  is  engraven  in  capital  letters  a 
chronicle  of  the  city  of  Athens,  are  anonymous.  The  Saxon 
Chronicles  in  which  we  have  the  records  of  the  early  history 
of  Great  Britain  are  anonymous.  Yet  all  these  are  esteemed 
by  learned  men  as  of  the  highest  historic  value,  though  we 
know  nothing  of  the  persons  by  whom  they  were  composed. 
There  is  abundant  evidence  of  their  authenticity,  and  their 
inestimable  historic  value,  even  though  tlieir  authors  are 
not  known.  The}^  have  all  the  force  and  value  of  state  doc- 
uments preserved  amongst  the  national  archives.  And  so  it 
is  with  the  records  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  of  Kings,  and 
Chronicles.  They  have  really  all  the  authority  and  value 
of  state  papers,  being  authentic  public  documents  preserved 
amongst  the  national  archives  of  the  Jews  as  long  as  the}" 
were  a distinct  nation,  and  ever  since  cherished  by  the  scat- 
tered fragments  of  that  people  as  the  most  authentic,  reli- 


144 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


able,  and  ancient  records  of  their  early  national  history. 
Let  me  here  put  a case  whicli,  as  an  illustration,  will  be 
perfectly  in  point:  “If  anyone  having  access  to  the  jour- 
nals of  the  Lords  and  Commons  in  England,  to  the  books 
of  the  Treasury,  tlie  records  of  the  War  office  and  Privy 
council,  should  at  this  day  write  a history  of  the  reigns  of 
George  I.  and  II.,  and  should  publish  it  without  a name, 
would  any  man  tliree  or  four  hundred  j^ears  or  even  a thou- 
sand years  hence  question  the  authenticity  of  this  book 
which  had  been  received  by  the  whole  nation  as  authentic 
from  the  day  of  its  publication  to  the  present  hour?  This 
is  a case  exactly  in  point.  The  history  of  the  Jewish  nation 
as  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  was  thus  composed  from 
state  documents,  and  thus  accepted  as  authentic  by  the  en- 
tire nation  from  that  day  to  this. 

2.  The  assumption  made  by  Paine  that  these  books  are 
anonymous,  is  false. 

The  Book  of  Joshua  is  clearly  the  production  of  an  eye- 
witness. The  writer  was  one  of  those  “who  passed  over 
Jordan  dry-shod.”  He  speaks  of  Rahab  as  still  dwelling  in 
Israel  when  he  writes,  and  of  Hebron  as  still  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh.  The  universal  tradi- 
tion of  the  Jews  is  that  it  was  written  by  Joshua.  And  it  is 
asserted  in  the  book  itself  that  Joshua  wrote  these  words  in 
the  Book  of  the  Law. 

The  Book  of  Judges  is  by  uniform  and  ancient  tradi- 
tion ascribed  to  Samuel.  The  two  Books  of  Samuel  were 
originally  one  work.  Samuel  in  all  probability  wrote  as  far 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


145 


as  the  twenty-fourth  chapter,  and  the  remainder  was  com- 
pleted by  Nathan  and  Gad ; accordingly  we  read  in  1 Chron. 
xxix.  29 : “ Now  the  acts  of  David,  the  king,  first  and  last, 
behold,  they  are  written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  Seer,  and 
in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  and  in  the  book  of  Gad 
the  Seer.”  The  two  Books  of  Kings  formed  in  the  Hebrew 
one  work,  and  are,  as  we  have  already  said,  a compilation 
from  state  documents  kept  in  the  public  archives  of  Jerusa- 
lem and  Samaria. 

Another  collateral  proof  which  I desire  you  also  par- 
ticularly to  note  is  that  we  have  preserved  a Book  of  Psalms, 
which  were  composed  by  David,  and  have  been  sung  by  the 
Jews  in  their  public  worshii)  and  family  devotions  from  the 
time  of  David  to  the  present  day,  the  Hymn  Book,  as  you 
may  properly  call  it,  of  the  Jewish  church.  Many  of  these 
Psalms  were  written  to  celebrate  great  events  in  their  na- 
tional life,  and  in  the  personal  history  of  David  their  king. 
Tlie  78th  Psalm  certainly  belongs  to  the  time  of  David,  and 
it  contains  a rapid  sketch  of  Jewish  history,  from  the  won- 
ders wrought  by  Moses  in  Egypt  to  the  settlement  of  the  ark 
on  Mount  Zion  by  David,  and  contains  allusions  to  more 
than  fifty  events  in  the  national  history  of  the  Jews,  the 
agreement  between  which  and  the  historic  books  is  remark- 
able. Now  the  question  E wish  to  put  to  you  is.  Do  you 
think  it  possible  to  induce  tlie  American  nation  to  commence 
singing  in  all  their  public  worship  hymns  to  commemorate 
events  which  never  happened  in  their  history?  Un  the 

whole,  then,  it  is  evident  that  the  Jews  of  David’s  time,  of 
K 


146 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


our  Lord’s  time,  and  of  all  recent  time,  have  no  other  ac- 
count to  give  of  their  national  history  than  the  account 
which  is  contained  in  tlie  Old  Testament. 

We  are  now  to  consider  wliat  amount  of  conllrmation 
profane  history  furnishes  to  this  portion  of  the  sacred  nar- 
rative. 

This  period  of  476  years  embraces,  as  we  have  already 
remarked,  the  extremes  of  depression  and  exaltation,  hu- 
miliation and  glory,  in  the  history  of  the  Jews.  During 
the  first  three  hundred  years  the  Israelites  were  a small  and 
comparatively  insignificant  people  dwelling  in  the  hilly 
country  of  Judea,  and  barely  maintaining  their  existence 
against  the  ceaseless  attacks  of  the  surrounding  tribes,  none 
of  whom  made  any  figure  in  histoiy.  We  cannot  therefore 
expect  to  find  any  points  of  contact  betvs^een  profane  and 
sacred  history  during  that  period.  Egypt  was  at  that  time 
the  most  important  kingdom,  and  Ass3U‘ia  was  just  rising 
into  note.  These  are  the  only  two  nations  which  can  be 
said  to  have  any  histoiw,  and  there  was  no  intercourse  be- 
tween the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  and  either  Egypt  or  As- 
syria, consequently  there  is  no  mention  in  sacred  history  of 
these  kingdoms  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  the  Jews  in  j:>rofane 
history  on  the  other. 

The  great  event  of  the  first  three  hundred  years  of  this 
period  we  are  now  considering,  was  the  entrance  of  the 
Israelites  into  Canaan,  and  the  driving  out  of  some  of  the 
Canaanitish  tribes,  a portion  of  whom  on  the  appinach  of 
Joshua  fied  to  the  coast  of  Afilca. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


147 


Now,  the  Bible  history  of  this  event  is  co  11  tinned  tlie 

testimony  of  three  distinct  and  independent  authorities, — 
Moses  of  Chorine,  the  Arniinian  historian,  Procopius,  the 
secretary  of  Belisarius,  the  Roman  General,  who  accompa- 
nied him  to  Africa,  and  Suidas,  the  ancient  Lexicographer. 
These  three  all  tesiify  that  at  Tigisis  (now  Tangiers)  in 
Africa  there  was  a monument  bearing  this  inscription,  We 
are  the  Canaanites  whom  Joshua  drove  out.’’ 

Moses  of  Chore. le  says,  ‘‘  When  he  (Joshua)  was  de- 
stroying the  Cana.inites,  some  lied  to  Agra,  and  sought 
Tharsis  in  ships.  This  appears  from  an  inscription,  carved 
on  i^illars  in  Africa,  which  is  extant  even  in  our  time,  and 
is  of  this  purport:  ‘ We  the  chiefs  of  the  Canaaiiites,  fleeing 
from  Joshua  the  Robber,  have  come  hither  to  dwell.’  ’’ 

Procopiusp,  having  mentioned  Tigisis,  a city  of  Xu- 
midia,  proceeds  to  say:  ••Where  there  are  two  columns, 
made  of  white  stone,  near  the  great  fountain,  having  carved 
upon  them  Phoenician  letters,  which  read  thus  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Phoenicians : ‘We  are  they  who  fled  from  the 
face  of  Joshua  the  Robber,  the  son  of  Nun.’”  This,  re- 
member, is  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness.  Procopius  had 
accompanied  Belisarius,  the  Roman  general,  as  his  secretary 
in  the  war  against  the  V andals  in  Africa. 

Suidas,  the  Lexicographer,  says,  “And  there  are  up  to 
the  recent  time  such  slabs  in  Numidia,  containing  the  fol- 
lowing inscription : ‘We  are  Canaanites,  whom  Joshua  the 
Robber  drove  out.” 

The  latter  portion  of  this  period  of  476  years,  was  the 


148 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


top-tide  splendor  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  under  the 
rei^jns  of  Saul,  David,  and  Solomon,  The  Jewish  empire 
was  now  in  its  advancing  glory.  During  the  reign  of  David 
the  Jews  were  a great  nation  among  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
during  Solomon’s  reign  they  were  perhaps  the  greatest. 
They  were  now  brought  into  immediate  contact  with  Egypt, 
Syria,  and  Phoenicia.  We  may  therefore  expect  many  no- 
tices of  the  Jews  in  the  history  of  those  nations  during  that 
period. 

The  first  nation  they  were  brought  into  contact  with 
was  the  Syrian.  One  of  the  first  exploits  of  David  was  the 
defeat  of  the  Syrians  near  the  Euphrates  when  they  came 
to  assist  Hadad,  king  of  Zobah,  a defeat  which  cost  them 
twenty  thousand  men.  Their  chief  city,  Damascus,  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  Israelites. 

This  is  mentioned  by  Eupolemus  and  Nicolas  of  Damas- 
cus, who  drew  their  information  from  native  sources.  Nico- 
las says  : ‘‘After  this  there  was  a certain  Hadad^  a native 
Syrian,  who  had  great  power:  he  ruled  over  Damascus,  and 
all  Syria,  except  Phoenicia.  He  likewise  undertook  a war 
against  David,  the  king  of  Judea,  and  contended  against 
him  in  a number  of  battles;  in  the  last  of  them  all — which 
was  by  the  river  Euphrates,  and  in  which  he  suffered 
defeat — showing  himself  a prince  of  the  greatest  courage 
and  prowess.” 

The  Jews  were  during  this  period  brought  into  inter- 
course with  the  Phoenicians  These  Phoenicians  lived  on  the 
westerly  slopes  of  Lebanon,  and  held  the  important  sea- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


149 


ports  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  They  were  a great  commercial 
and  seafaring  people,  and  needed  to  keep  up  the  inland 
traffic  through  the  land  of  Israel  to  Damascus  and  the  Eu- 
phrates. Accordingly"  we  find  that  when  David  became 
master  of  the  land,  overtures  of  friendship  were  made  by 
the  chiefs  of  the  Phoenicians,  the  good-will  of  David  was 
secured  by  numerous  presents  (1  Chron.  xxii.  4),  and  a firm 
friendship  was  established  which  continued  down  to  Solo- 
mon’s time  (1  Kings,  v.  1). 

This  friendly  connection  between  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre, 
and  Solomon,  is  mentioned  by  Menander  and  Dius,  native 
Phoenician  historians. 

The  words  of  Dius  are  as  follows  : ‘‘On  the  death  of 
Abibalus,  his  son  Hiram  became  king.  This  man  raised 
banks  on  the  eastern  part  of  the  city,  and  made  it  larger, 
and  united  it  to  the  temple  of  the  Olympian  Jupiter,  which 
stood  on  an  island  by  itself.  He  built  a causeway  between, 
and  adorned  this  temple  with  golden  offerings.  Moreover, 
he  went  up  into  Lebanon,  and  cut  timber  to  build  temples. 
Now  they  say  that  Solomon,  who  ruled  over  Jerusalem,  sent 
riddles  to  Hiram,”  etc.  Hiram  paid  a large  sum  of  money 
to  Solomon  as  tribute. 

The  account  which  is  given  of  the  Phoenicians  as  to 
their  wealth,  enterprise,  maritime  skill,  and  arts,  is  perfectly 
in  accord  with  all  we  learn  of  their  history  from  other 
sources.  “Thou  knowest,”  writes  Solomon  to  Hiram,  the 
Phoenician,  “that  there  is  not  among  us  any  that  have  skill 
to  hew  timber  like  the  Sidonians.”  Again,  “Send  me  now 


150  UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 

therefore  a man  cunning  to  work  in  gold,  and  in  silver,  and 
in  brass,  and  in  iron,  and  in  purple,  and  crimson,  and  blue,” 
etc.  And  again,  when  Solomon  built  a navy  of  ships  on  the 
shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  Hiram  sent  in  the  navy  his  servants, 
shipmen  that  had  knowledge  of  the  sea,  with  the  servants  of 
Solomon.”  Here  we  see  at  once,  as  in  a mirror,  the  real 
character  of  the  Phcenicians. 


LECTURE  VIII. 


0 Assyrian^  the  rod  of  mine  anger ^ and  the  staff  in  their  hand  is 
mine  indignation. 

1 will  send  him  against  an  hypocritical  nation^  and  against  the  peo- 
ple of  my  wrath  will  I give  him  a charge^  to  take  the  spoil,  and  to  take 
the  prey^  and  to  tread  them  down  like  the  mire  of  the  streets. — Isaiah  x. 
5,  6. 

The  third  period  of  sacred  history  which  comes  under 
consideration  this  afternoon,  is  that  which  intervenes  be- 
tween 975  and  588  B.  c.,  a period  of  38 T years. 

It  coininences  with  the  division  of  th&  Hebrew  common- 
wealth into  two  separate  kingdoms  immediately  on  the  death 
of  Solomon ; and  ends  with  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
and  the  city  of  Jerusalem  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  the 
reign  of  IsTebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon. 

The  last  lecture  embraced  the  history  of  the  rise  of  the 
Jewish  empire ; the  present  embraces  the  histoiy  of  its  de- 
cline and  fall.  During  the  reign  of  Solomon  the  Hebrew 
nation  reached  the  zenith  of  its  glorj^,  and  became,  in  fact, 
the ' greatest  empire  of  the  East.  It  extended  eastward  to 
tlie  Euphrates,  southward  to  the  borders  of  Egypt,  and 
northward  to  Asia  Minor.  Sitting  like  an  empress  be- 
tween tlie  Eastern  and  Western  oceans,  the  navies  of  three 


152 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


continents  poured  their  treasures  at  her  feet,  and  awed  by 
lier  commanding  name,  the  dromedaries  of  Midian  brought 
spontaneous  tribute  of  spices  and  silver  and  precious  stones.” 

The  history  of  this  period  is  a history  of  the  achieve- 
ments of  peace  rather  than  the  exploits  of  war.  Along 
with  peace  there  came  the  highest  degree  of  national  pros- 
perity. Peace  and  commerce  made  “gold  as  brass,  and 
silver  as  the  stones  of  the  street.”  The  large  quantities  of 
the  precious  metals  imported  from  Ophir  and  Tarshisli  indi- 
cate a boundless  source  of  wealth.  The  kings  and  princes 
of  the  subject-provinces  paid  annual  tribute  in  money  and 
in  kind.  Monopolies  of  ti’ade  also  contributed  largely  to  the 
king’s  treasury,  and  the  trade  in  tine  linen  and  chariots  and 
horses  from  Egypt  must  have  brought  in  large  revenues. 
The  king’s  domain-lands  were  let  out  as  vineyards,  or  for 
other  purposes,  at  a fixed  annual  rental,  and  a tax  of  ten 
per  cent,  was  levied  on  all  products.  The  total  amount  of 
revenue  brought  into  the  treasury  from  all  sources  in  gold, 
exclusive  of  all  payment  in  kind  (which  must  have  also 
been  immense),  was  6G6  talents,  which  some  compute  at 
upwards  of  eighteen  millions  of  dollars. 

The  temple  erected  by  Solomon  on  Mount  Moriah  was 
unquestionably  the  most  costly  and  magnificent  structure  of 
the  ancient  world.  He  also  erected  a number  of  elegant 
palaces,  laid  out  extensive  pleasure-grounds,  digged  pools 
and  reservoirs,  erected  fountains,  planted  gardens  with  all 
manner  of  trees,  and  secured  a large  collection  in  zoology 
and  botany  from  every  part  of  the  then  known  world. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


153 


The  most  celebrated  of  his  palaces  was  the  House  of 
the  Forest  ot’  Lebanon,”  a splendid  Basilica  (a  pillared  hall) 
a hundred  cubits  long.  All  the  plate,  and  much  of  the  fur- 
niture of  this  palace,  was  of  pure  gold.  Here  was  the  royal 
hall  of  ordinance  and  of  justice,  where,  seated  on  a throne 
of  ivory  and  gold,  which  was  guarded  and  sustained  by  six 
lions  on  each  side,  the  symbols  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  he 
heard  appeals  and  made  decisions. 

All  the  equipments  of  the  court  and  the  apparel  of  the 
servants  were  on  the  grandest  scale.  If  Solomon  went  on 
a royal  progress  to  his  paradisiac  gardens  at  Etham,  he  was 
clad  in  snow-white  raiment,  and  rode  in  a stately  chariot  of 
cedar,  decked  with  silver  and  gold  and  purple,  and  carpeted 
with  the  costliest  tapestry.  A body-guard  of  “threescore 
valiant  men”  accompanied  him,  the  tallest  and  handsomest 
of  the  sons  of  Israel,  arrayed  in  Tyrian  purple,  their  long 
black  hair  sprinkled  freshly  every  day  with  gold-dust.  If 
he  went  from  his  hall  of  judgment  to  the  temple,  he  marched 
between  two  lines  of  soldiers,  each  with  a burnished  shield 
of  gold.  Forty  thousand  stalls  for  horses,  and  twelve  thou- 
sand horsemen,  made  up  the  measure  of  his  magnificence. 

He  built  strong  fortifications,  as  Millo,  Hazor,  Megiddo, 
and  the  two  Beth-horons,  for  the  purposes  of  defense ; and 
large  cities  for  the  purposes  of  commerce,  as  Tiphsah  on  the 
Euphrates,  and  Tadmor  in  the  eastern  wilderness  (better 
known  in  latter  days  as  Palmyra),  whose  magnificent  ruins 
are  to-day  the  astonishment  and  wonder  of  the  traveler. 
An  empire  of  such  extensive  commercial  relations,  occupy- 


154 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


ing'  such  ii  commMncling  geograpliical  position,  and  displa}^- 
ing  so  much  magnificence  and  wealtli,  must  have  excited  the 
attention,  and  ieft  some  impression  upon  the  history,  of  the 
surrounding  nations.  Accordingly  we  find  notices  of  tlie 
Jewish  empire  in  Phoenician,  Syrian,  and  Egyptian  histoiy. 

On  the  deatli  of  Solomon,  Rehoboam  his  son  ascended 
the  throne.  The  tribes  of  Israel  were  now  determined  to 
relieve  themselves  of  the  oppressive  burdens  which,  in  the 
latter  part  of  his  reign,  Solomon  had  imposed  upon  the  peo- 
ple, to  sustain  the  splendor  and  extravagance  of  his  court. 
They  therefore  recalled  Jeroboam  from  his  retirement  in 
Egypt,  where  he  had  lied  to  escape  the  displeasure  of  Solo- 
mon, and  with  him  at  their  head  the}"  demanded  of  Reho- 
boam the  redress  of  their  grievances,  but,  it  would  seem, 
without  success. 

It  is  evident  that  the  ten  tribes  were  predetermined  un- 
der all  circumstances  to  separate  from  Judah,  and  establish 
an  independent  government.  Accordingly  they  openly  re- 
volted, and  made  Jeroboam  their  king,  while  the  tribes  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin  remained  under  the  government  of 
Rehoboam. 

This  was  the  origin  of  the  two  kingdoms  of  the  Hebrew 
people,  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  the  kingdom  of  Judah; 
the  first  occupying  the  northern  portion  of  the  land,  with 
the  ancient  city  of  Shechem  for  the  seat  of  government;  the 
second  retaining  the  southern  portion  of  the  land,  with 
Jerusalem  for  its  capital  as  heretofore. 

It  is  beyond  our  design  to  trace  the  subsequent  history 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


155 


of  tliese  two  kingdoms.  We  desii*e  simply  to  note  that  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  maintained  its  existence  under  the  reigns 
of  nineteen  kings  for  254  years.  Its  career  throughout  all 
that  period  was  downwards.  It  was  an  idolatrous,  corrupt, 
and  sensual  nation  ; and  at  last  after  various  chastisements, 
most  of  the  people  were  taken  captive  beyond  the  Euphra- 
tes by  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria,  never  to  return.  This 
occurred  721  b.  c. 

The  kingdom  of  Judah  maintaim^d  its  existence  133 
years  longer,  in  all  387  years.  This  kingdom  was  favored 
with  many  excellent  rulers,  and  the  worship  of  the  true  God 
was  not  utterly  forsaken,  a circumstance  which,  no  doubt, 
contributed  to  prolong  the  existence  of  the  empire.  In  its 
later  histoiy  the  nation  became  corrupt  and  idolatrous,  and 
was  at  last  taken  captive  by  ISTebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Baby- 
lon, in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his  reign,  588  B.  c. 

This  period  of  387  years,  between  075  and  588  b.  c., 
was,  as  most  scholars  are  aware,  an  eventful  epoch,  second 
to  none  in  historic  interest.  It  comprised  within  its  limits 
some  of  the  most  important  I’cvolutions  in  the  ancient  world. 
AYhile  the  events  we  have  biletl}^  narrated  were  transpiring 
among  the  Hebrews,  equally  momentous  events  were  tran- 
spiring among  the  great  nations  of  antiquity.  “This  period 
embraces  the  development,  decline,  and  fall  of  the  Assyrian 
empire;  the  sudden  and  rapid  growth  of  Media  and  Baby- 
lon ; the  revival  of  the  Egyptian  empire  under  tlie  Psam- 
metichi;  the  most  illustrious  period  of  the  Phoenician  cities; 
the  rise  of  Sparta  and  Athens;  the  founding  of  Carthage 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


156 

and  Home ; and  the  spread  of  civilization  from  the  Sea  of 
Azof  to  the  Pillars  of  Hercules.”  (Ravvlinson.)  These 
great  events  were  transpiring  in  the  ancient  world  contem- 
poraneously with  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah,  as  recorded  in  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
This  period  has  been  appropriately  styled  the  transition 
period  of  profane  historj^  because  during  this  387  years 
profane  history  emerges  from  the  dream-land  of  mjThs  and 
legends,  and  enters  the  sober  lields  of  chronological  realities 
and  sober  facts. 

Of  this  period  we  have  fortunately  the  most  ample  and 
reliable  historic  records.  Herodotus,  justly  styled  the  Father 
of  History,  was  born  in  the  centuiy  following,  484  B.  c. 
The  greater  portion  of  his  life  was  spent  in  travel  to  collect 
the  materials  for  his  great  work.  He  visited  Eg}’^pt,  Baby- 
lon, Sythia,  Gyrene,  Zante,  Dod6na,  and  the  Greek  colonies 
which  encircled  the  shores  of  Southern  Italy,  conversing 
with  priests  and  learned  men,  examining  public  monuments, 
searching  the  national  archives  and  public  records,  for  the 
most  authentic  information  in  relation  to  the  history  of  these 
various  nations.  In  the  following  century  we  have  the  his- 
torian Berosus,  a priest  of  Belus  at  Babylon,  who  wrote  a 
history  of  Babylonia,  of  which  many  fragments  are  pre- 
served in  Josephus,  Eusebius,  Syncellus,  and  the  Christian 
fathers,  which  are  regarded  as  remarkably  authentic  and 
accurate.  A little  later  we  have  Manetho,  a priest  of  Heli- 
opolis, who  wrote  a ‘‘History  of  Egypt.”  The  genuineness 
of  the  fragments  of  this  history,  which  are  preserved  in 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


^57 


Josephus,  Eusebius,  and  Syncellus,  has  been  ably  demon- 
strated by  Niebuhr,  Bunsen,  and  Muller.  And  in  addition 
to  these  we  have  the  Asiatic  and  Egyptian  monuments 
which  we  have  already  described.  Here,  then,  we  have 
abundant  materials  for  a comparison  of  sacred  and  profane 
history,  and  we  shall  see  that  Egypt,  Assyria,  Persia,  Greece, 
and  even  Moab  and  Phoenicia,  vie  with  each  other  in  offer- 
ing their  tribute  of  testimony  to  the  truth  and  accuracy  of 
the  Hebrew  records. 

During  this  eventful  period  of  387  years  the  Hebrews 
were  brought  into  contact  with  the  neighboring  kingdoms 
of  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Babylon.  They  were  often  at  war 
with  one  or  the  other  of  these  powers;  sometimes  they  were 
victorious,  but  often er  defeated  and  made  tributary  to  first 
one  and  then  the  other;  and  finally  they  were  utterly  sub- 
jugated and  carried  as  captives  beyond  the  Euphrates.  If 
their  history  as  recorded  in  the  Bible  is  an  authentic  history, 
and  not  a mere  fable,  we  may  naturally  expect  to  find,  that 
as  their  relations  to  Egypt  and  Assyria  and  Babylon  are  so 
frequently  mentioned  in  Hebrew  history,  so  also  the  Jews 
will  be  mentioned  in  the  histories  and  monuments  of  these 
great  powers.  Just  as  in  American  history  we  have  allu- 
sions to  the  relations  of  our  nation  with  England  and 
France,  and  in  French  and  English  history  we  have  similar 
allusions  to  their  relations  with  Ameri<^a,  so  we  may  expect 
to  find  the  same  reciprocal  allusions  in  the  histories  of  these 
ancient  nations. 

I have  previously  intimated  that  the  Books  of  Kings 


UNIVERSITY  LE  CTURES. 


158 

aiul  Chronicles  were  compiled  from  state  documents,  records 
which  had  been  preserved  in  tlie  national  archives  of  the 
Hebi’ew  commonwealth,  as  state  documents  are  now  pre- 
served in  the  E,olls  Court  in  London,  and  at  the  Capitol  in 
Washington.  This  method  of  chronicling  and  preserving 
the  records  of  national  events  was  the  uniform  practice  in 
all  the  great  nations  of  antiquity.  These  records  were 
made  on  skins,  parchments,  and  papjn-us-rolls ; sometimes 
on  stone,  clay-tablets,  and  brass,  sometimes  in  paintings  on 
the  walls  of  palaces  and  tombs. 

In  almost  all  the  ancient  nations  the  preparing  of  these 
important  records  was  confided  to  the  priests.  Among  the 
Hebrews  it  was  committed  to  prophets  in  the  highest  repute 
among  the  people.  The  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles 
particularizes  thirteen  books  of  prophets  which  formed  a 
portion  of  the  national  chronicles  of  the  Jews.  The  Books 
of  Samuel,  of  Nathan,  of  Gad,  etc.,  are  among  the  docu- 
ments which  are  mentioned  as  supplying  the  materials  for 
the  two  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  the  work  of 
compiling  and  arrangijig  is,  by  universal  tradition,  ascribed 
to  Ezra.  The  writings  of  some  of  the  most  illustrious  of 
the  prophets  who  lived  during  this  period  have  come  down 
to  our  times.  Isaiah,  IJosea,  Joel,  Micah,  Obediali,  Jere- 
miah, Zephaniah,  all  lived  during  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of 
Israel  and  Judah.  The  prophet  Isaiah  was  contemi)orary 
with  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah. 
One  whose  life  was  so  thoroughly  incorporated  with  the 
national  life  of  the  people,  who  mingled  in  public  allairs. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


IS9 


and  vvais  so'  frequently  consulted  by  kings,  must  have  had 
tlie  best  opportunity  of  accurately  knowing  the  histoiy  of 
the  times,  and  though  not  designing  to  write  a histoiy,  we 
may  naturally  expect  in  his  writings  to  find  frequent  allu- 
sions to  public  events.  Accordingly  we  do  find  that  he 
mentions  the  entire  succession  of  kings  from  Uzziah  to 
Hezekiah;  the  alliance  of  Eezin  king  of  Syria  and  Pekah 
king  of  Israel  against  Ahaz  king  of  Judah;  the  plunder  of 
Damascus;  the  spoiling  of  Samaria;  the  praj^er  of  Heze- 
kiah; the  destruction  of  Sennacherib’s  ho^t,  his  return  to 
Nineveh,  his  murder  and  the  escape  of  Ids  murderers;  the 
invasion  of  Tiglatli-Pileser ; and  a great  maiy^  other  events 
of  his  time  which  confirm  the  accounts  which  are  given  in 
the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 

The  two  great  powers  with  which  the  Hebiews  were 
brought  into  contact  during  this  period  were  Egypt  and  As- 
syria. 

Let  us  commence  with  Egypt,  and  see  how  far  the  ac- 
count given  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  of  the  relations  between 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Egyptians,  is  confirmed  by  Egyptian 
history. 

The%rst  noteworthy  event  which  transpired  in  the  his- 
toiy of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  was  the  invasion  of  Judea 
by  Shishak  in  the  fifth  year  of  Pehoboam.  In  the  2d  Book 
of  Chronicles,  xii.  1-9,  we  read  that  Shishak  came  up  against 
Jerusalem  with  twelve  hundred  chariots,  sixty  thousand 
horsemen,  and  footmen  without  number.  He  took  the 
fenced  cities  which  belonged  to  Judah,  and  was  proceeding 


i6o 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


to  invest  Jerusalem,  when  Rehoboam  made  his  submission 
and  became  tributary  to  the  Egyptian  kings.  Shishak  pil- 
laged the  temple  and  ‘^the  king’s  house,”  and  carried  away 
also  the  shields  of  gold  which  Solomon  had  made.  This  is 
the  Biblical  account. 

The  record  of  this  same  campaign  still  remains  on  the 
outside  of  the  great  temple  of  Karnak,  put  there  by  order 
of  Sheshonk  I.,  the  first  Pharaoh  of  the  22d  dynasty,  to 
commemorate  his  success.  Among  the  list  of  captured  towns 
and  districts  the  name  of  “ Tuda  MelcliV'^  (kingdom  of  Ju- 
dah) was  discovered  by  Campollion.  The  existence  of  this 
inscription  is  also  affirmed  by  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  and  M.  Bun- 
sen, two  high  authorities  in  Egyptology.  (See  Rawlinson’s 
“Herodotus,”  vol.  ii.  p.  315.) 

Another  important  event  in  the  history  of  the  relations 
of  these  two  kingdoms,  Judea  and  Egypt,  is  mentioned  in 
2 Kings  xxii.  29-35.  Pharaoh-Kecho  invaded  Judea,  de- 
feated and  killed  Josiah,  the  king  of  Judah,  pressed  his 
conquests  to  the  Euphrates,  also  took  Carchemish  and  Jeru- 
salem, led  Jehoahaz  the  son  of  Josiah  into  captivity,  and 
established  his  dominion  over  the  whole  of  Syria. 

Rawlinson  says,  “It  is  impossible  not  to  recognize  the 
famous  Egyptian  monarch  whom  Manetho  calls  Nechao, 
Herodotus  Keco,  and  the  monuments  Neku,  the  son  and 
successor  of  the  first  Psammetichus,  as  the  Pharaoh-Kecho 
of  this  historic  record  in  Kings.”  The  invasion  of  Syria  by 
Kecho,  and  the  defeat  of  the  Syrians  in  a great  battle  in 
Megiddo,  are  attested  by  Herodotus;  and  Manetho,  the  na- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


i6i 


tive  Egyptian  liistorian,  tells  us  that  the  same  king  took 
Jerusalem,  and  carried  Jehoahaz  captive  to  Egypt. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Assyrian  history,  where  the  points 
of  contact  with  Hebrew  history  are  frequent,  and  we  shall 
lind  numerous  and  interesting  confirmations  of  the  accuracy 
of  the  Biblical  record. 

The  separate  existence  of  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel 
and  Judah  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions. The  names  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  the  kings  of 
Judah  occur  frequently  in  the  accounts  which  the  great  As- 
s\Tian  monarchs  have  left  of  their  wars  and  conquests. 
These  names  are  always  capable  of  an  easy  identification 
with  the  Scripture  names,  and  always  occur  in  the  same 
chronological  order  as  given  in  the  Bible.  The  Jewish  mon- 
arch has  the  title  of  “King  of  Judah,”  and  his  Israelitish 
brother  is  designated  after  his  chief  city,  “the  house  or  city 
of  Oniri,”  he  being  the  original  founder  of  Samaria. 

During  the  reigns  of  Menahem,  king  of  Israel,  and 
Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  and  for  a century  after,  w'e  find 
a close  connection  between  Jewish  history  and  that  of 
Assyria.  The  history  of  the  two  nations  becomes  now  in- 
terlaced, as  it  were,  in  consequence  of  numerous  wars ; 
and  all  the  kings  who  reigned  in  Assyria  for  one  hundred 
and  twelve  years  are  mentioned  in  Scripture.  The  succes- 
sors of  Pul,  or  Phul,  king  of  Assyria,  are  presented  in 
Scripture  in  the  exact  chronological  order  in  which  they 
stand  on  the  monuments:  1.  Tiglath-Pileser  II.  2.  Shal- 
maneser IV.  3.  Sargon.  4.  Sennacherib.  5.  Esarhaddon. 

L 


i62 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


These  five  kings  all  carried  their  arms  into  Palestine, 
and  they  stand  out  as  prominent  figures  in  the  history  of  the 
Jews,  just  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  here  given,  and  it 
is  at  least  remarkable,  may  we  not  say  providential,  that 
after  2300  years,  the  monumental  records  of  these  five  mon- 
archs  are  now  in  the  British  Museum,  and  are  deciphered 
with  as  much  ease  as  any  ancient  Roman  or  Greek  inscrip- 
tion. 

1.  Tiglath-Pileser  II.  The  chief  events  related  in 
Scripture  in  which  this  Assyrian  monarch  was  an  actor,  are 
his  two  invasions  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel ; the  first  when 
he  took  Ijon,  Janoah,  Kedesh,  Gilead,  Galilee,  and  all  the 
land  of  Naphtali,  and  carried  the  people  captive  into  As- 
syria (2  Kings  XV.  29) ; the  second  when  he  came  at  the 
invitation  of  Ahaz,  king  of  Israel,  and  not  only  chastened 
Pekah,  king  of  Israel,  but  took  Damascus,  and  slew  Rezin, 
the  Syrian  king  (2  Kings  xvi.  7-9). 

The  first  expedition  is  slightly  alluded  to  in  the  inscrip- 
tions of  Tiglath-Pileser,  but  no  details  are  given.  Of  the 
second,  an  account  is  given  on  the  pavement  slabs  of  a pal- 
ace at  Nimrud,  which  slabs  are  now  in  the  British  Museum. 
They  have  been  translated  by  Dr.  Hinks  and  Col.  Rawlin- 
son,  and  they  attest  that  Tiglath-Pileser  defeated  Rezin, 
king  of  Damascus,  took  and  destroyed  his  city,  and  that  the 
king  of  Samaria  paid  him  tribute. 

2.  Shalmaneser  lY.  He  was  the  successor  of  Tiglath- 
Pileser.  We  read  in  2 Kings  xvii.  3-6  that  this  Assyrian 
king  twice  came  up  against  Hoshea,  the  last  King  of  Israel ; 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


163 


on  the  first  occasion  to  levy  or  enforce  tribute,  on  the  second 
to  punish  Hoshea  for  contracting  an  alliance  with  Egypt, 
the  foe  of  Assyria  ; at  which  time  he  laid  close  siege  to 
Samaria  for  three  years.  There  are  two  inscriptions  in  the 
British  Museum  which,  it  is  believed,  belonged  to  Shalman- 
eser. One  of  them  mentions  Hoshea,  king  of  Samaria;  the 
other  speaks  of  a son  of  Eezin,  king  of  Damascus. 

The  capture  of  Samaria  is  claimed  by  his  successor  Sar- 
gon  as  an  exploit  of  the  first  year  of  his  reign.  This  claim, 
at  any  rate,  confirms  the  fact  that  Shalmaneser  commenced 
the  siege  of  Samaria,  and  prosecuted  it  for  three  years. 
The  prolonged  absence  of  the  Assyrian  monarch  from  his 
capitol  seems  to  have  encouraged  a rival  to  come  forward 
and  usurp  the  throne.  While  Shalmaneser  was  prosecuting 
the  seige  of  Samaria,  Sargon  possessed  himself  of  the 
supreme  power,  just  as  in  later  times  the  Pseudo-Smerdis 
took  advantage  of  the  absence  of  Cambyses  in  Egypt  for  a 
like  purpose.  The  fall  of  Samaria  may  therefore  have  oc- 
curred during  the  i-eign  of  the  usurper  Saigon  whose  ascent 
to  the  throne  founded  a new  dynasty. 

3.  This  Sargon,  the  successor  of  Shalmaneser,  was  the 
builder  of  the  magnificent  palace  of  Khorsabad,  now  so  well 
known  from  Mr.  Botta’s  excavation,  and  the  engravings  of 
its  sculptures  published  at  the  expense  of  the  French  gov- 
ernment. A valuable  series  of  monuments  now  deposited 
in  the  Louvre  at  Paris,  furnish  the  bulk  of  the  historical 
notes  of  his  reign.  The  statue  of  Sargon  brought  from 
Idalium  is  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum. 


164 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Oil  one  of  the  inscriptions  brought  from  Khorsabacl, 
Sargon  tells  us  that  he  took  Samaria  in  his  first  year,  and 
carried  away  captive  to  Assyria  27,280  Jewish  families. 
The  same  fact  is  mentioned  in  2 Kings  xvii.  6,  “In  the  ninth 
year  of  Hoshea  the  King  of  Assyria  took  Samaria,  and  car- 
ried Israel  away  into  Assyria.”  This  was  the  end  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  after  an  existence  of  254  years.  From 
this  captivity  they  never  returned. 

Of  this  Sargon  we  have  a clear  historical  notice  in  Isaiah 
XX.  1,  “ In  the  year  that  Tartan  came  unto  Ashdod  (when 
Sargon  the  king  of  Assyria  sent  him),  and  fought  against 
Ashdod,  and  took  it.”  On  the  Black  Obelisk,  now  in  the 
British  Museum,  there  is  an  inscription  to  the  effect  that 
“Sargon  made  war  against  Ashdod,  and  took  it.”  (See 
Rawlinson’s  “Herodotus,”  vol.  i.  p.  379). 

4.  The  Assyrian  Monarch  who  appears  in  Scripture 
next  to  Sargon,  is  Sennacherib,  whom  the  monuments  show 
to  have  been  his  son. 

Two  expeditions  of  this  monarch  against  Hezekiah, 
king  of  Judah,  are  related  in  Scripture. 

The  first  of.  these  was  when  Hezekiah  had  thrown  oft* 
his  allegiance  to  Assyria  (an  allegiance  paid  by  the  kings  of 
Judah  from  the  days  of  Ahaz).  In  2 Kings  xviii.  13,  14,  we 
read,  “Kow  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  king  Hezekiah  did 
Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria  come  up  against  the  fenced 
cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them.  And  Hezekiah  king  of 
Judah  sent  to  the  king  of  Assyria  to  Lachish,  saying,  I have 
offended;  return  from  me;  that  which  thou  puttest  upon  me 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


1 65 

will  I bear,  and  the  kin^  of  Assyria  appointed  unto  Heze- 
kiah  king  of  Judea  three  hundred  talents  of  silver  and 
thirty  talents  of  gold.” 

This  Sennacherib  was  the  monarch  who  removed  the 
seat  of  the  Assyrian  government  to  Nineveh,  which  he  calls 
‘‘ the  ro}^al  city.”  The  city  had  fallen  into  a state  of  ex- 
treme decay,  and  he  directed  his  vast  resources  to  its  restora- 
tion. He  also  erected  a magnificent  palace,  which  he 
decorated  throughout  with  elaborate  sculptures  in  commem- 
oration of  his  various  achievements.  This  edifice  which  is 
now  known  as  the  great  Koyunjik  palace,  was  excavated  and 
thoroughl}^  explored  by  Mr.  Layard,  and  a large  collection 
of  its  sculptured  monuments  was  removed  to  London  at  the 
expense  of  the  British  government,  and  now  crowd  the  As- 
syrian rooms  of  the  British  Museum.  The  excavated  portion 
of  this  palace  covers  an  area  of  about  eight  acres.  At  the 
grand  entrance  were  placed  the  collossal  winged  bulls,  with 
six  human  figures  of  vast  proportions.  On  four  of  these 
collossal  figures  are  inscriptions  which  contain  the  annals  of 
six  years  of  Sennacherib’s  reign.  These  inscriptions  were 
independently  translated  by  Dr.  Hinks,  Col.  Rawlinson, 
and  Mr.  Laj-ard,  with  remarkable  agreement.  Here,  among 
much  historical  matter,  is  found  the  following  confirmation 
of  the  account  we  have  just  read  from  the  Book  of  Kings. 
Sennacherib  in  his  inscription  says,  ‘‘And  because  Hezekiah, 
king  of  J udah,  would  not  submit  to  my  yoke,  I came  up 
against  him,  and  by  the  force  of  arms  and  by  the  might  of 
my  power  I took  forty-six  of  his  strong  fenced  cities,  and  of 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


1 66 

the  smaller  towns  which  were  scattered  about,  I took  and 
plundered  a countless  number.  And  from  these  places  I 
captured  and  carried  off  as  spoil  two  hundred  thousand  one 
hundred  and  fifty  people,  old  and  young,  male  and  female, 
together  with  horses  and  mares,  asses  and  camels,  oxen  and 
sheep,  a countless  multitude.  And  Hezekiah  himself  I shut 
up  in  Jerusalem,  his  capital  city,  like  a bird  in  a cage,  build- 
ing towers  around  the  city  to  hem  him  in,  and  raising  banks 
of  earth  against  the  gates,  so  as  to  prevent  escape  . . .Then 
upon  this  Hezekiah  there  fell  the  fear  of  the  power  of  my 
arms,  and  he  sent  out  to  me  the  chiefs  and  the  elders  of 
Jerusalem  with  thirty  talents  of  gold,  and  eight  hundred 
talents  of  silver,  and  divers  treasures,  a rich  and  immense 
booty. . . .All  these  things  were  brought  to  me  at  Nineveh, 
the  seat  of  my  government,  Hezekiali  having  sent  them  by 
way  of  tribute,  and  as  token  of  his  submission  to  my  power.” 
This  translation  was  made  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson.  (For 
further  information  in  regard  to  this  magnificent  palace  of 
Sennacherib  and  the  inscriptions  there  found  I refer  you  to 
Layard’s  “Nineveh  and  Babylon,”  ch.  vi.) 

There  is  a coincidence  in  every  respect  between  the 
record  in  Kings,  and  the  record  on  the  monuments,  except 
in  regard  to  the  number  of  talents  of  silver.  The  account 
in  Kings  says  three  hundred  talents,  that  on  the  monuments 
says  eight  hundred  talents.  The  Bible  evidently  enumerates 
in  that  amount  only  the  actual  money  carried  away.  Sen- 
nacherib himself  probably  estimates  the  actual  value  of  all 
the  precious  metals  carried  away,  for  at  verse  sixteen  we  are 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


167 


told  Hezekiah  cutoff  the  gold  and  silver  from  the  pillars  and 
doors  of  the  temple,  and  gave  it  to  the  Assyrian  king. 

A still  further  confirmation  of  the  Biblical  account  of 
Sennacherib’s  having  taken  Lachish,  and  of  the  king  of 
Judah  having  come  there  to  submit  himself  to  him,  was  dis- 
covered at  Mosul  by  Mr.  Layard.  A chamber  was  discov- 
ered in  which  the  sculptures  were  in  a better  state  of 
preservation  than  any  before  found  at  Koyunjik.  The 
sculptures  and  bas-reliefs  of  this  chamber  are  minutely 
described  by  Mr.  Layard  at  pp.  126-129  in  his  “ N’ineveh 
and  Babylon.”  There  on  a throne  may  Sennacherib  be  seen 
sitting  before,  or  at  the  entrance  of,  the  city  of  Lachish,  and 
above  his  head  is  the  following  inscription  in  cuneiform 
characters,  “ Sennacherib  the  mighty  king  sitting  upon  his 
throne  before  the  city  of  Lachish.  I give  permission  for  its 
slaughter.”  Before  him  is  a train  of  captives  in  a supplica- 
ting attitude,  and  the  most  unpractised  eye  can  easily  recog- 
nize the  physiognomy  of  the  Jew.  At  page  129  Mr.  Layard 
gives  an  engraving  of  some  of  these  captured  Jews,  which 
you  may  do  well  to  inspect. 

The  second  expedition  of  Sennacherib  into  Judea  fol- 
lowed some  time  after.  On  this  occasion  no  collision  took 
place  between  Sennacherib  and  Hezekiah.  Sennacherib 
sent  threatening  letters  to  Jerusalem,  but  before  he  was  able 
to  carry  his  threats  into  execution,  that  miraculous  over- 
throw of  his  army  took  place  which  is  recorded  in  2 Kings 
xix.  35-37,  “And  it  came  to  pass  that  night,  that  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  went  out,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


1 68 

[which  was  at  Lib n ah  on  the  borders  of  Egypt]  an  hundred 
fourscore  and  five  thousand:  and  wheii  they  arose  early  in 
the  morning,  behold,  they  were  all  dead  corpses.  So  Sennach- 
erib king  of  Assyria  departed,  and  went  and  returned, 
and  dwelt  at  Nineveh.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  was 
worshipping  in  the  house  of  Nisroch  his  god,  that  Adram- 
melech  and  Sharezer  his  sons  smote  him  with  the  sword : 
and  they  escaped  into  the  land  of  Armenia.  And  Esarhad- 
don  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.” 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  equally  marvellous 
account  which  is  given  by  Herodotus  in  chapter  141  of  his 
second  book  entitled  ‘‘  Euterpe,”  is  the  Egyptian  version  of 
the  same  event.  The  Egyptians  would  naturally  ascribe 
such  a miraculous  overthrow  of  so  large  and  powerful  an 
army  to  the  interposition  of  their  own  gods.  But  that  such 
an  event  did  occur,  the  evidence  is  conclusive.  The  names 
of  the  kings  and  the  place  of  the  battle  in  both  accounts, 
are  the  same. 

The  murder  of  Sennacherib  by  his  two  sons  on  his  re- 
turn to  Nineveh,  is  mentioned  also  by  Berosus,  the  Assyrian 
historian. 

Esarhaddon  is  distinctly  pointed  out  as  the  son  and  suc- 
cessor of  Sennacherib.  “ Esarhaddon  his  son  reigned  in  his 
stead”  (2  Kings  xix.  37).  Here  again  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments agree  with  the  Scriptures.  The  Hon.  Fox  Talbot  in 
his  “ Assyrian  Texts  Translated,”  assures  us  that  Esarhad- 
don, in  his  inscriptions,  frequently  speaks  of  Sennacherib  as 
his  father.  The  events  with  which  his  name  is  connected  in 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


169 


Scripture  are  few.  He  was  obviously  tlie  contemporary  of 
3Iauassah,  and  was  undoubtedly  the  kin^  of  Assyria  whose 
captains  “took  Manassali  among  the  thorns,  and  bound  him 
with  fetters,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon  ” (2  Chron.  xxxiii. 
11).  The  monuments  full}' confirm  this  fact  by  stating  that 
Manassah  was  a “tributary  of  Esarhaddon.” 

But  here  is  an  apparent  discrepancy.  The  Bible  saj^s  that 
the  generals  of  an  Ass3adan  king  took  Manassah  captive  to 
Babylon.  The  question  naturally  arises.  What  had  an 
Assj^rian  king  to  do  with  Babjdon?  Observe  how,  even  in 
incidental  matters,  there  is  a wonderful  coincidence.  Esar- 
haddon was  the  only  Assyrian  king  who  was  actually  the 
conqueror  and  consequently  tlie  king  of  Babjdon.  He  built 
a palace  and  occasionally  held  court  there.  A Babjdonian 
tablet  has  been  found  dated  by  the  j^ear  of  liis  reign.  No 
similar  fact  can  be  proved  of  an}"  other  Ass}"rian  monarch. 

With  Esarhaddon  the  notices  of  the  Assyrian  kings  close 
in  the  sacred  volume. 

Babylon  soon  after  became  a powerful  monarch}^  and 
under  Nabopolassar  threw  off  the  Assyrian  yoke,  and  over- 
threw the  Assyrian  Empire.  After  the  death  of  Nabopo- 
lasser,  Nebuchadnezzar  succeeded  to  the  throne.  Tlie  revolt 
of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah,  provoked  the  wrath  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  who  beseiged  and  took  Jerusalem.  He 
carried  away  captive  some  members  of  the  royal  famil}"  and 
many  nobles  as  hostages  for  the  future  fidelity  of  the  king. 
Among  these  was  Ezekiel  the  prophet,  and  Daniel  and  his 
three  companions. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


170 

This  was  the  commencement  of  the  Babylonian  captiv- 
ity. The  revolt  of  Zeclekiah  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  the 
reign  of  ISTebuchadnezzar,  completed  the  ruin  of  the  king- 
dom of  Judah.  Nebuchadnezzar  now  burned  the  temple 
and  city  to  the  ground,  and  transported  the  people  to  Baby- 
lonia. Thus  ended  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  588  B.  c. 


LECTURE  IX. 


Thus  saith  the  Lord  to  his  atioi7ited^  to  Cyrus,  -whose  rig^ht  hand  I 
hare  holden,  to  suhdtie  nations  hejore  him  ; For  Jacob  my  servant's  sahe, 
and  Israel  mine  elect,  I have  even  called  thee  by  thy  7tame:  I have  surna7ned 
thee,  tho7igh  thou  hast  7tot  Jcno'W7t  i7ie,  I am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none 
else, there  is  7io  God  besides  ine  ; I girded  thee,  though  thou  hast  7iot  kiiown 
7ne:  That  they  7tiay  hno-w  from  the  risiitg  of  the  sun,  and  froin  the  -west, 
that  there  is  7to7ie  besides  me,  I am  the  Lord,  a7id  there  is  7ione  else, — 
Isaiah  xlv,  4-6. 

We  are  now  in  the  course  of  our  inquiry  brought  lo 
the  fourth  or  last  period  in  the  Old  Testament  history,  a 
period  of  184  years  intervening  between  588  and  404  b.  c. 

This  period  commences  with  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  and  cit}^  of  Jerusalem  by  fire,  and  the  carrying  away 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  into  captivity,  in  the  nineteenth  year 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  and  extends  through 
the  seventy  years  captivity  to  the  final  reestablishment  of 
the  Jews  in  their  own  land,  during  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes, 
king  of  Persia,  which  closes  the  historic  records  of  the  Old 
Testament  canon,  400  years  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 

This  period  of  184  years  again  naturally  subsides  into 
two  periods,  1.  The  time  of  the  captivity  and  servitude  in 
Babylon,  52  years;  2.  The  period  of  the  return  and  re- 
establishment of  the  Jews  in  their  own  land,  132  years. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


172 

The  period  of  the  captivity  was  also  an  eventful  epoch 
in  the  history  of  the  great  nations  of  the  earth.  The  As- 
syrian empire  was  overthrown  by  the  Babylonians  under 
Nabopolasser,  and  Babylon  became  the  greatest  nation. 
The  Babylonian  empire  itself  was  during  this  period  subju- 
gated by  Cyrus  the  Persian,  and  the  Medo-Persian  swa}^ 
became  supreme. 

The  seventy  years  captivity  of  Judah  really  commenced 
with  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  ^Nebuchadnezzar  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah,  GOG  B.  c. 

About  600  B.  c.,  ^Nineveh,  the  capital  of  the  Assyrian 
empire,  was  besieged  by  the  Medes  and  Ba.bylonians.  Tak- 
ing advantage  of  this  state  of  affairs  in  Assyria^  JNecho,  king 
of  Egypt,  interfered  in  the  affairs  of  Judea,  dethroning 
Jehoahaz,  who  was  then  tributary  to  Assyria,  and  placing 
Jehoiakim,  a vassal  of  Egypt,  upon  the  throne. 

^Nabopolassar,  the  king  of  Babylon,  while  engaged  in 
the  siege  of  Nineveh,  saw,  with  displeasure,  -this  interfer- 
ence of  the  king  of  Egypt  in  the  affairs  of  Judea,  and  sent 
his  son  Nebuchadnezzar  to  restore  the  province  to  its 
allegiance.  In  this  he  succeeded,  and  Jehoiakim  became 
his  vassal,  and  continued  so  to  the  end  of  his  days. 

Nineveh  was  subsequently  captured,  and  Nabopolassar 
dying  soon  after,  Nebuchadnezzar  succeeded  to  the  throne. 
While  the  attention  of  this  monarch  was  otherwise  engaged, 
Jehoiakim  had  the  temerity  and  madness  to  revolt  against 
him.  Nebuchadnezzar  then  besieged  and  took  Jerusalem, 
He  carried  away  a portion  of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


173 


temple,  which  he  lodged  in  the  temple  of  Beliis  at  Babylon. 
He  also  carried  into  captivity  some  members  of  the  royal 
family  and  many  of  the  nobles  as  hostages  for  the  future 
fidelity  of  the  king  and  people.  Amongst  these  were  Ezekiel 
the  prophet,  and  Daniel  and  his  companions,  Shadrach, 
Meshech,  and  Abednego. 

This  was  properly  the  commencement  of  the  Babylonish 
captivity ; the  completion  of  this  captivity,  that  is,  the  time 
when  the  entire  tribe  may  be  said  to  have  been  taken  cap- 
tive, was  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  N^ebiichadnezzar’s  reign. 
Zedekiah  had  been  induced  by  Pharaoh-Hophrah,  king  of 
Egypt,  under  promises  of  aid,  to  revolt.  In  consequence  of 
this  revolt  the  Babylonian  king  invaded  Judea  with  a large 
army,  burned  the  temple  and  city  to  the  ground,  sent  to 
Babylon  all  the  gold  and  silver  he  could  find,  and  transport- 
ed all  the  people  who  had  been  left  behind  after  Jehoiakim’s 
captivity,  save  the  veriest  poor  of  the  land;  and  thus  ended, 
under  the  itiost  unhappy  circumstances,  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  after  an  existence  of  387  years. 

Of  the  actual  condition  and  history  of  the  Jews  during 
the  remaining  fifty-two  years  of  their  captivit}^  we  have  no 
direct  historic  records,  and  these  fifty-two  years  would  have 
formed  a blank  in  the  Hebrew  annals,  did  we  not  possess  in 
the  writings  of  one  of  the  prophets  some  historic  materials 
which  fill  the  blank.  Conformable  with  the  usage  of  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah,  Daniel  combines  history  with  prophecy,  unit- 
ing in  one  book  an  account  of  the  visions  with  which  he  was 
favored,  and  a history  of  the  events  which  transpired  under 
his  personal  observation. 


174 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


It’,  then,  this  B^ok  of  Daniel  be  genuine,  if  it  was  really 
written  by  Daniel,  the  narrative  it  contains  must  possess  the 
highest  degree  of  historic  credibility.  The  witness  is  a 
thoroughly  competent  witness;  his  testimony  is  the  best, 
because  he  narrates  events  of  which  he  had  immediate 
knowledge,  and  he  had  the  best  opportunity  of  knowing, 
inasmuch  as  he  filled  offices  of  trust  under  the  Babylonian 
and  the  Medo-Persian  kings. 

This  Book  of  Daniel  contains  some  of  the  most  remark- 
able and  explicit  predictions  in  relation  to  the  future  destiny 
of  the  four  great  empires  of  antiquity, — the  Babylonian, 
Medo-Persian,  Macedonian,  and  Roman ; it  announces  in 
plain  and  literal  terms  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and  fixes 
the  exact  year  of  his  advent;  it  has  therefore  been  the  subject 
of  the  combined  attacks  of  Infidelity  from  the  days  of  Celsus 
and  Porphyry  down  to  the  present  hour.  And  there  is  no 
wonder  that  it  should  be  so  when  we  remember  how  clearly 
and  circumstantially  all  these  prophecies  have  received  their 
accomplishment,  and  thus  furnished  an  unanswerable  proof 
of  the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  It  was  asserted 
by  Porphyry  in  the  third  century,  and  it  is  the  favorite 
argument  of  Strauss  and  the  German  rationalists  in  the 
present  day,  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  could  not  have  been 
written  by  Daniel,  but  must  have  been  written  during  the 
reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  by  some  impostor. 

This  is  tlie  assertion,  now  let  us  have  the  proof.  Here 
then  is  the  proof.  Can  you  believe  it  m}^  skeptical  friend  ? 

The  minuteness  and  accuracy  of  the  predictions  tallj^  s6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


^75 


exactly  with  the  known  course  of  history,  therefore  they 
must  have  been  written  after  the  event.’’  Who  ever  heard 
such  an  argument  before!  Because  the  prediction  was  so 
strikingly  fulfilled,  it  must  have  been  written  after  the  event ! 
It  is  with  the  skeptic  a foregone  conclusion  that  the  knowl- 
edge and  prediction  of  events  which  are  future  and  remote 
is  (even  to  God)  an  a priori  impossibility;  it  is  a miracle 
which  never  can  take  place,  and,  therefore,  on  this  simple 
presumption,  they  deny  that  this  Book  of  Daniel  could  have 
been  written  during  the  Bab3donish  captivity,  or  that  Daniel, 
one  of  the  captives,  was  its  author.  This  is  surely  to  ignore 
all  facts,  and  be  a skeptic  in  spite  of  all  evidence. 

I^ow  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  composed  during 
the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  160  B.  c.,  is  certain. 

1.  Because  it  was  translated  into  Greek  during  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  more  than  seventy  years  be- 
fore the  ascension  of  this  very  Antiochus. 

2.  Daniel's  prophecy,  particularly  in  relation  to  the 
ascendancy  of  the  Greeks,  was  shown  to  Alexander  the 
Great  when  he  pushed  his  conquests  into  Palestine,  332  B.  c., 
and  he  was  disposed  on  that  account  to  deal  favorably  with 
the  Jews. 

3.  There  are  quotations  from  Daniel  made  by  Joseph, 
the  son  of  Sirach,  who  must  have  written  his  book  180  B.  c. 
which,  though  uninspired  and  uncanonical,  is  just  as  good 
historic  authority  as  Herodotus  or  Josephus. 

4.  The  alternate  use  of  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  which  is 
the  main  linguistic  peculiarity  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  is  only 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


176 

natural,  and  could  only  have  occurred,  when  both  languages 
were  currently  spoken  by  the  Jews.  This  collateral  f)i’oof 
may  therefore  be  regarded  as  fixing  the  date  of  this  book 
during  the  period  of  the  captivity. 

5.  Finally,  it  may  have  some  weight  with  the  Infidel 
to  add  that  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  also 
of  Ezekial,  is  admitted  by  Thomas  Paine.  I confess  that 
his  opinion,  however,  on  one  side  or  the  other,  is  of  no  weight 
with  me,  for  he  is  the  most  ignorant,  unscrupulous,  and  dis- 
honest author  that  has  ever  attempted  to  write  down 
Christianity. 

The  genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  being  thus 
placed  beyond  doubt,  we  shall  proceed  to  consider  the  con- 
firmations of  its  authenticity  which  are  furnished  so  con- 
clusively by  profane  history. 

The  two  great  nations  with  which  the  Jews  were  brought 
into  relation  during  these  184  years,  were  the  Babylonian 
and  Persian:  during  the  first  seventy  years  their  relations 
were  with  the  Babylonian  kings,  during  the  remaining  one 
hundred  and  fourteen  years  with  the  Persian  kings.  We 
commence,  then,  with  Babylonian  history  and  ask,  Does  it 
confirm  the  Bible  history? 

The  fundamental  event  of  this  period  was  the  Captivity 
itself.  This  event  was  predicted  by  Jeremiah  twenty  years 
before  its  actual  occurrence  : ‘‘  And  this  whole  land  shall 

be  a desolation,  and  an  astonishment;  and  these  nations 
shall  serve  the  king  of  Babylon  seventy  years”  (Jeremiah 
XXV.  11).  That  this  prediction  was  literally  fulfilled  admits 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


177 


of  no  reasonable  doubt.  That  the  Jews  were  really  carried 
away  into  Babylon  we  need  not  attempt  to  prove.  Not  only 
do  we  find  from  the  monuments  of  Babylon,  and  the  subse- 
quent history  of  Persia,  that  such  transfers  of  whole  popu- 
lations were  common  in  the  East,  but  we  have  the  direct 
testimony  of  Berosus,  the  Chaldean  historian,  to  the  actual 
carrying  away  of  the  Jews  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  their 
final  settlement  in  Babylonia. 

There  are  events  of  much  more  minuteness  and  partic- 
ularit}^  narrated  by  Daniel  in  relation  to  the  history  of 
Babylon  and  her  kings,  which  receive  a striking  confirmation 
from  profane  history. 

I.  The  character  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  length  of  his 
reign,  the  fact  that  he  uttered  prophecies,  and  his  strange 
sickness,  these  are  all  points  in  which  we  find  a signal  agree- 
ment between  sacred  and  profane  history. 

1.  The  character  of  this  prince,  the  splendor  and  mag- 
nificence he  displayed,  his  military  success,  his  devotion  to 
his  gods,  and  the  pride  he  took  in  adorning  Babylon,  are  all 
noted  by  Berosus  and  Abydenus,  and  in  these  respects  they 
confirm  the  account  of  him  which  is  given  by  Daniel.  Take 
as  an  example  one  fact.  Daniel  represents  Nebuchadnezzar 
as  saying  in  his  pride,  “Is  not  this  great  Babylon  which  I 
have  built?  ” and  Berosus  confirms  this  saying  by  telling  us 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  repaired  the  city  which  had  existed 
from  the  first,  and  added  another  to  it,  and  both  statements 
are  verified  by  the  fact  that  nine-tenths  of  the  inscribed 


M 


178 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


bricks  found  in  the  ruins  of  Babylon  are  insci'ibed  with 
Nebuchadnezzar’s  name. 

2.  The  fact  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  endowed,  on  one 
occasion  at  least,  with  prophetic  powers,  as  stated  by  Dan- 
iel, is  also  remarkably  confirmed  by  a passage  in  Abydenus. 
‘‘The  Chaldeans,”  says  he,  “relate  that,  after  this,  Nebu- 
chadnezzar went  up  to^his  palace,  and  being  seized  with  a 
Divine  afflatus,  prophesied  to  the  Babylonians  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  city  by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  after  which  he 
suddenly  disappeared  from  amongst  them.”  Is  it  not  re- 
markable that  this  particular  prince,  who  alone,  of  all  the 
heathen  monarchs  with  whom  the  Jews  were  in  contact,  is 
said  to  have  had  the  future  revealed  to  him  by  God,  should 
thus  be  mentioned  by  both  Daniel  and  Abydenus? 

3.  The  length  of  Nebuchadnezzar’s  reign  is  stated 
without  any  variation  by  Berosus,  Polyhistor,  and  Ptolemy, 
as  forty-three  years. 

The  Babylonian  monuments  go  to  prove  nearl}^  the 
same  thing,  for  the  account  of  the  forty-second  year  has 
been  found  upon  a clay-tablet  in  Babylon,  being  an  order 
on  the  imperial  treasury,  dated  in  the  current  year  of  the 
reigning  monarch,  just  as  a modern  act  of  parliament  would 
be  in  Great  Britain.  All  this  is  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  Bible.  The  first  year  of  Evil-Merodach,  the  successor 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  the  thirty- seventh  year  of  the  cap- 
tivity of  Jehoiakim,  who  was  taken  captive  in  the  eighth 
year  of  Nebuchadnezzar’s  reign. 

4.  Berosus,  the  Chaldean  historian,  is  silent  as  to  Neb- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES . 


179 


uchadnezzar’s  strange  sickness.  It  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  he  would  perpetuate  the  memory  of  so  humiliating  an 
event  in  the  life  of  a Babylonian  monarch.  But  in  the 
“Standard  Inscription”  translated  by  Sir  H.  Bawlinson, 
there  is  a memorandum  which  certainly  answers  to  this 
event.  “For  four  years,”  says  he,  “I  did  not  build  any 
high  places,  did  not  lay  up  any  treasures,  did  not  sing  the 
praises  of  my  god  Merodach,  did  not  offer  sacrifice,  did  not 
keep  any  works  of  irrigation.^’  He  suffered  from  a form  of 
madness  known  to  physicians  as  “Lycanthropy,”  in  which 
the  patient  imagines  himself  an  animal. 

II.  The  successor  of  this  unfortunate  monarch  was 
IS’eriglassar,  who,  though  not  mentioned  in  Scripture  as  a 
monarch,  has  been  recognized  as  one  of  the  princes  who 
accompanied  Nebuchadnezzar  in  his  last  expedition  to  eleru- 
salem.  He  is  designated  in  Jeremiah  as  Rab-Mag,  the  chief 
of  the  magicians,  and  this  is  the  title  which  is  also  found 
attached  to  the  name  of  Neriglassar  in  his  brick  legends. 
It  corresponds,  letter  by  letter,  with  that  of  the  Babylonian 
king. 

III.  Of  the  son  of  Neriglasser,  who  was  a mere  child, 
and  reigned  only  a few  montlis,  the  sculptures  contain  no 
trace. 

IV.  Whether  his  successor,  the  last  native  king  whose 
name  stands  in  the  canon  of  Ptolemy,  has  a place  in  the 
sculpture  narrative,  has  long  been  a dispute  amongst  learned 
men.  His  name  was  Nabonidus. 

That  there  is  no  name  in  the  least  resembling  this  in  the 


i8o 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Bible  is  readily  granted.  But  it  has  always  been  supposed 
that  this  prince  was  identical  with  Belshazzar,  whom  Daniel 
makes  the  last  Babylonian  ruler. 

The  great  diversity  of  these^two  names  has  always  made 
this  theory  appear  very  unsatisfactory,  and  Infidels,  finding 
that  we  had  no  better  explanation  to  offer  of  this  acknowl- 
edged difficulty,  have  been  emboldened  to  declare  that  Dan- 
iel’s account  of  Belshazzar  was  a pure  invention  of  his  own, 
that  it  is  contradicted  by  Berosus,  and  is  an  unmistakable 
proof  of  the  unreliable  character  of  the  entire  book.  They 
could  point  to  the  fact  that  Daniel  makes  Belshazzar  the 
last  Babylonian  king.  Ptolemy’s  canon  makes  IS’abonidus 
the  last.  They  could  also  point  to  the  fact  that  no  profane 
historian  mentions  such  a king  as  Belshazzar.  They  could 
also  show  from  Berosus  that  the  last  Babylonian  monarch 
was  absent  from  the  city  when  it  was  taken  by  the  Pei’sians, 
and  could  not  have  been,  as  Daniel  says,  slain  in  the  midst 
of  his  bacchanalian  revelries.  B erosus  says  the  last  Baby- 
lonian monarch  was  taken  prisoner  afterwards  at  Borsippa, 
and  then,  not  slain,  but  treated  with  great  kindness  by 
Cyrus. 

Here,  then,  was  a great  triumph  for  Infidelity.  BuCto 
show  how  premature  all  Infidel  triumphs  are,  and  how 
strikingly  Scripture  is  confirmed,  instead  of  being  invali- 
dated, by  every  new  discovery  in  history  as  well  as  in 
science,  we  can  now,  in  our  turn,  point  to  the  wonderful 
and  providential  discovery  made  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in 
the  year  1854,  at  Mugheir,  the  ancient  U r of  the  Chaldees^ 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


I8l 


of  the  following  inscription:  ‘‘Nabonidus  (the  last  king) 
associated  with  himself  on  the  throne,  daring  the  latter  part 
of  his  reign,  his  son  Belshazzar,  and  allowed  him  the  title 
of  king.”  This  Belshazzar  was  the  prince  who  conducted 
the  defense  of  Babylon,  and  was  slain  in  the  massacre  which 
followed  the  capture.  His  father  IS'abonidus,  who  com- 
manded an  army  stationed  in  Borsippa,  surrendered  to  Cy- 
rus, and  received  that  clemency  which  the  Persian  kings 
usually  showed  to  a fallen  monarch.  Thus,  by  this  provi- 
dential discovery,  Berosus  the  Babylonian  historian,  and 
Daniel  the  sacred  historian,  are  harmonized,  and  another 
striking  example  is  furnished  of  the  circumstantial  accuracy 
of  the  Bible. 

This  discovery  also  throws  a flood  of  light  upon  another 
text  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel,  the  twenty-ninth  verse. 
When  Belshazzar  saw  the  mysterious  writing  upon  the  walls 
of  the  palace,  “Mene  mene  tekel  upharsin,”  and  none  of 
the  magicians  and  literati  of  Babylon  could  interpret  it,  he 
sent  for  Daniel,  who  at  once  explained  it.  Then  Belshazzar 
commanded  to  clothe  Daniel  in  scarlet,  and  put  a chain  of 
gold  about  his  neck,  and  proclaim  him  third  in  the  empire. 
But  why  proclaim  him  third?  why  not  second?  or  if  there 
were  three,  who  was  first,  and  who  was  second?  The  an- 
swer is  furnished  in  this  discovery, — JYabonidus  was  first,  Bel- 
shazzar was  second,  Daniel  was  third. 

The  fact  of  the  sudden  and  unexpected  capture  of  Baby- 
lon by  a Medo-Persian  army  dui*ing  the  celebration  of  a 
festival,  and  the  consequent  absorption  of  the  Babylonian 


i82 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


into  the  Medo-Persian  empire,  is  another  of  those  numerous 
and  striking’  agreements  between  profane  and  sacred  history 
which  speak  for  themselves  and  need  no  comment.  The 
narrative  of  Herodotus  is  as  follows  : 

‘‘Cyrus,  with  the  first  approach  of  the  ensuing  spring, 
marched  forward  against  Babylon.  The  Babylonians,  en- 
camped without  their  walls,  awaited  his  coming.  A battle 
was  fought  at  a sliort  distance  from  the  city,  in  wdiich  the 
Babylonians  were  defeated  by  the  Persian  king,  whereupon 
they  withdrew  within  their  defenses.  Here  they  shut  them- 
selves up,  and  made  light  of  his  siege,  having  laid  in  a store 
of  provisions  for  many  years  in  preparation  against  this  at- 
tack ; for  when  they  saw  Cyrus  conquering  nation  after 
nation,  they  were  convinced  that  he  would  never  stop,  and 
that  their  turn  would  come  at  last. 

“ Cyrus  was  now  reduced  to  great  perplexity,  as  time 
went  on  and  he  made  no  progress  against  the  place.  In  this 
distress  either  some  one  made  the  suggestion  to  him,  or  he 
bethought  himself  of  a plan,  which  he  proceeded  to  put  in 
execution.  He  placed  a' portion  of  his  army  at  the  point 
where  the  river  enters  the  city,  and  another  body  at  the 
back  of  the  place  where  it  issues  forth,  with  orders  to  march 
into  the  town  by  the  bed  of  the  stream,  as  soon  as  the  water 
became  shallow  enough;  he  then  himself  drew  off  with  the 
unwarlike  portion  of  his  host,  and  made  for  the  place  where 
Nitocris  dug  the  basin  for  the  river,  where  he  did  exactly 
what  she  had  done  formerly:  he  turned  the  Euphrates  by  a 
canal  into  the  basin,  which  was  then  a marsh,  on  which  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


183 

river  sank  to  such  an  extent  that  the  natural  bed  of  the 
stream  became  fordable.  Hereupon  the  Persians  who  had 
been  left  for  the  purpose  at  Babylon  by  the  river-side,  en- 
tered the  stream,  which  had  now  sunk  so  as  to  reach  about 
midway  up  a man’s  thigh,  and  thus  got  into  the  town.  Had 
the  Babylonians  been  apprised  of  what  Cyrus  was  about, 
or  had  they  noticed  their  danger,  they  would  not  have  al- 
lowed the  entrance  of  the  Persians  within  the  city,  which 
was  what  ruined  them  utterly,  but  would  have  made  fast  all 
the  street-gates  which  gave  upon  the  river,  and  mounting 
upon  the  walls  along  both  sides  of  the  stream,  would  so 
have  caught  the  enemj^  as  it  were  in  a trap.  But,  as  it  was, 
the  Persians  came  upon  them  by  surprise,  and  so  took  the 
city.  Owing  to  the  vast  size  of  the  place,  the  inhabitants  of 
the  central  parts  (as  the  residents  at  Babylon  declare)  long- 
after  the  outer  portions  of  the  town  were  taken,  knew 
notliing  of  what  had  chanced,  but  as  they  were  engaged  in 
a festival,  continued  dancing  and  revelling  until  they  learnt 
the  captui-e  but  too  certainl}".  Such,  then,  were  the  circum- 
stances of  the  lirst  taking  of  Bat>ylon.”  (See  Bawlinson’s 
Herodotus,”  vol.  i.  pp.  254-255.) 

The  Bible  account  of  the  festival  is  given  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  Daniel.  At  the  concluding  verses  we  read,  “In 
that  night  was  Belshazzar  the  king  of  the  Chaldeans  slain. 
And  Darius  the  Median  took  the  kingdom.” 

All  this  was  distinctly  foretold,  even  to  its  minutest  de- 
tails, by  the  prophets  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  “Thussaith 
the  Lord,  that  saith  unto  the  deep,  Be  dr}^,  and  I will  dry 


184 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


up  tliy  rivers  : that  saith  of  Cyrus,  He  is  my  shepherd, 
and  shall  perforin  all  ray  pleasure”  (Isaiah  xliv.  27,28); 
“ and  I will  loose  the  loins  of  kings,  to  open  before  him  the 
two  leaved  gates;  and  the  gates  shall  not  be  shut”  (xlv.  1). 
“ One  post  shall  run  to  meet  another,  and  one  messenger  to 
meet  another,  to  show  the  king  of  Babylon  that  his  city  is 
taken  at  one  end,  and  that  the  passages  are  stopped,  and  the 
reeds  they  have  burned  with  fire,  and  the  men  of  war  are 
affrighted.”  “In  their  heat  I will  make  their  feasts,  and  I 
will  make  them  drunken,  that  they  may  rejoice,  and  sleep  a 
perpetual  sleep,  and  not  wake,  saith  the  Lord.”  (Jer.  li. 
31,  32,  39.)  “Her  young  men  shall  fall  in  her  streets,  and 
all  the  men  of  war  shall  be  cut  off  in  that  day”  (xlix.  26). 

This  prophecy  was  delivered  one  hundred  and  sixty 
years  before  the  taking  of  Babylon,  and  yet  that  event  is 
predicted,  even  to  its  minutest  details;  its  river  was  to  be 
dried  up,  the  water  gates  left  open,  the  city  taken  during  a 
night  of  revelr}%  and  Cyrus  its  conqueror  is  mentioned  by 
name  two  hundred  years  before  he  was  born.  Skeptics  have 
no  other  resource  but  to  say  that  Isaiah  must  have  written 
after  the  event. 

The  Restoration  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land,  and  their 
vicissitudes  and  fortunes  until  the  reformation  under  Nehe- 
miah,  fill  up  the  remaining  one  hundred  and  twenty  years. 
The  history  of  the  Jews  during  this  period  is  given  by  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  and  receives  some  illustration  and  confirma- 
tion in  the  books  of  the  prophets,  Haggai,  Malachi,  and 
Zachariah,  who  lived  after  the  captivity. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


185 

Tlie  prophet  Daniel  was  still  alive  when  Babylon  was 
taken  by  Cyrus,  though  he  must  have  been  a venerable  old 
man,  upwards  of  eighty  years  of  age.  There  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  he  was  in  the  highest  repute  with  the  con- 
querors. In  some  of  the  decrees  issued  by  Cyrus  in  relation 
to  the  return  of  the  Jews,  he  evidently  indicates  some  knowl- 
edge of  those  predictions  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah  which  sig- 
nalized him  as  the  conqueror  of  Babylon  and  the  deliverer 
of  the  Jews.  ‘‘Thus  saith  Cjuais  king  of  Persia,  The  Lord 
God  of  heaven  hath  given  me  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth; 
and  he  hath  charged  me  to  build  him  a house  at  Jerusalem, 
which  is  in  Judah  ’’  (Ezra  i.  2) . 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Daniel  called  the  attention 
of  Cyrus  to  these  prophecies.  We  know  that  he  had  studied 
the  writings  of  Isaiah,  and  Inid  ascertained  that  the  dura- 
tion of  the  captivity  was  to  be  seventy  years.  And  when 
he  found  the  seventy  years  had  expired,  and  Babylon  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  very  king  Cyrus  whom  Isaiah  had  so 
signally  pointed  out  as  the  “restorer  of  the  captives  of 
Israel,”  he  directed  the  attention  of  Cyrus  to  the  prophecy. 
The  communication  of  these  facts  would  unquestionably 
produce  a deep  impression  upon  the  Persian  Cyrus,  espe- 
cially when  it  is  remembered  that  the  Persians  were  believ- 
ers in  one  God,  and  had  an  intense  abhorrence  of  idol-wor- 
ship. Their  faith,  and  that  of  the  Jews,  were  in  this  respect 
identical. 

C3"rus  accordingl}^,  as  we  read  in  Ezra  i.  2-5,  issued  a 
decree  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  authorizing  the  Jews  to 
return  and  build  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 


i86 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Most  of  the  then  existing  race  of  Jews  had  been  born 
in  Babylonia,  and  had  established  themselves  in  the  country. 
Only  a small  but  pious  minority  were  disposed  to  return. 
The  first  caravan  was  organized  under  the  direction  of 
Zerubbabel,  the  grandson  of  Jehoiakim,  the  last  king  of 
Judah,  and  Joshua,  the  son  of  Josedech,  the  last  high 
priest.  It  consisted  of  50,000  persons,  including  about  7000 
male  and  female  servants.  Before  their  departure  Cyrus 
restored  to  them  the  more  valuable  of  the  vessels  of  the 
temple  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  brought  away.  Zerub- 
babel  was  also  entrusted  with  large  contributions  towards 
the  expense  of  rebuilding  the  temple  from  those  Jews  who 
chose  to  remain  in  Babylon. 

The  Jews  on  their  arrival  in  Jerusalem  commenced 
earnestly  to  rebuild  the  temple,  but  experienced  consider- 
able annoyance  from  the  Samaritans.  They  weakened  the 
hands  of  the  people  of  Judah,  and  troubled  them,  and  hin- 
dered them  during  the  reigns  of  Cyrus  and  his  successor 
Cambyses  ; and  by  the  misrepresentations  they  made  to 
Smerdis  (he  is  called  Artaxerxes  by  Ezra)  thej^  induced  him 
to  issue  a decree  that  the  work  of  the  house  of  God  should 
cease  (Ezra  iv.  24). 

The  issuing  of  this  decree  by  Smerdis,  wiio  was  a Mede 
and  a usurper,  and  as  such  opposed  to  the  pui-e  theistic  re- 
ligion of  the  Persians  as  well  as  the  Hebrews,  is  no  matter 
of  surprise.  He  sought  not  only  to  reverse  the  religious 
policy  of  his  predecessors,  wlio  were  Persian  kings,  but  also 
to  restore  the  power  to  the  Medes  which  they  had  lost  since 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


187 


the  days  of  Cyrus.  This  suspension  of  all  the  works  on  the 
temple  lasted  until  the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspes, 
during  which  the  poor  Israelites  lost  heart,  and  were  greatly 
discouraged.  But  from  this  lethargy  they  were  aroused  by 
the  earnest  preaching  of  Haggai,  and  commenced  with  fresh 
zeal  (Haggai  ii.  1-9). 

The  restored  Jews  experienced  no  further  molestation 
in  the  lifetime  of  Darius,  who  reigned  thirty-six  years,  and 
died  485  B.  c.  He  was  succeeded  by  Xerxes  (the  Ahasuerus 
mentioned  in  Esther),  who  continued  filendly  to  the  Jews 
notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  the  Samaritans  to  prejudice 
his  mind  against  them. 

Xerxes  was  succeeded  by  Artaxerxes  Longimanus, 
whose  long  reign  embraced  many  circumstances  of  interest 
to  the  Jewish  people.  He  commissioned  Ezra  to  return  to 
Jerusalem,  and  set  in  order  everything  necessary  to  the  ser- 
vice and  worship  of  the  true  God ; he  was  accompanied  by 
another  caravan  of  six  thousand  persons.  The  final  per- 
mission to  build  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  as  well  as  the  tem- 
ple, was  granted  to  Xeliemiah,  the  cupbearer  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus,  in  the  twentieth  year  of  his  reign.  Xehemiah 
had  heard  fi-om  some  of  his  returned  countrymen  how  the 
Jews,  who  had  engaged  in  rebuilding  the  temple,  were  in 
affliction  and  reproach,  and  that  the  walls  of  the  ancient 
city  were  still  broken  down,  and  her  gates  consumed  with 
fire.  This  intelligence  deeplj^  affected  him.  He  “sat  down 
and  wept,  and  mourned  certain  days,  and  fasted,  and  praj^ed 
before  the  God  of  heaven.”  The  sorrow  of  his  soul  cast  a 


i88 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


hue  of  sadness  over  liis  countenance,  and  it  did  not  escape 
the  attention  of  tlie  king  when  Nehemiah  appeared  before 
him  in  his  duties  as  cupbearer.  He  inquired,  ‘‘Why  is  thy 
countenance  sad,  seeing  thou  art  not  sick?”  Nehemiah  an- 
swered, “ Why  should  not  my  countenance  be  sad,  when  the 
city,  tlie  place  of  my  fathers’  sepulchres,  lieth  waste,  and  the 
gates  thereof  are  «ionsumed  with  fire  ? ” Artaxerxes  immedi- 
ately granted  him  leave  of  absence  for  fifteen  years,  and 
empowered  him  to  rebuild  the  walls  of  Zion,  and  fortify 
the  ancient  city.  After  twelve  years’  absence  he  returned 
to  Babylon,  but  hearing  that  social  disorder  was  prevalent 
in  Jerusalem,  he  again  obtained  permission  to  return,  and 
with  an  unsparing  hand  he  effected  those  great  changes,  and 
established  those  regulations,  which  are  known  as  “the 
Reformation  under  Xehemiah.” 

Here  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture  closes, 
and  our  further  information  in  relation  to  the  history  of  the 
Jews  until  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  obtained  from  Josephus, 
and  the  uninspired  Book  of  Maccabees. 

The  authenticity,  as  well  as  the  genuineness,  of  the  sacred 
Books  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  has  nevei*  been  questioned 
by  Infidels.  They  disarm  even  the  rationalists  of  Gennan}^ 
by  the  absence  of  any  miraculous  or  even  marvelous  fea- 
tures, the  humble  and  subdued  tone  in  which  they  are  writ- 
ten, and  the  weakness  and  subjection  the}^  confess.  They 
at  once  refiect  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  the  state  of  feeling 
amongst  the  afflicted,  chastened  Israelites.  These  are  all 
marks  which  at  once  attest  the  sincerity  and  honesty  of  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


189 


writers.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  books  were  written  by 
the  persons  whose  superscription  they  bear.  The  writers 
were  personally  observant  of  the  facts  they  narrate.  Ezra 
was  the  head  of  ecclesiastical  and  Nehemiah  of  civil  affairs. 
Even  Paine,  the  prince  of  scoffers,  who  is  so  unscrupulous 
in  his  assertions  of  want  of  genuineness,  and  his  charges 
of  falsehood,  admits  the  genuineness  of  these  books. 
“These  books,”  says  he,  “we  allow  to  be  genuine,  giving 
an  account  of  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian 
captivit}^  about  536  before  Christ,  but  those  accounts  are 
nothing  to  us,  nor  to  any  other  persons,  unless  it  be  the  Jews 
as  a pan  of  their  nation’s  history;  and  there  is  just  as  much 
of  the  word  of  God  in  them  as  in  the  history  of  France.” 
Indeed!  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  genuine,  authentic 
books,  but  they  are  nothing  to  us!  Let  us  see.  The  first 
verse  of  the  Book  of  Ezra  saj-s;  “iNTow  in  the  first  year  of 
Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  the 
mouth  of  Jeremiah  might  be  fulfilled,  the  Lord  stirred  up 
the  spirit  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  that  he  made  a procla- 
mation,” etc.  Is  it  nothing  for  us  to  know  that  Jeremiah 
was  a true  prophet,  and  that  the  prediction  he  uttered  one 
hundred  and  thirty  years  before,  prefacing  it  with  the  sol- 
emn words  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  was  literally  fulfilled ? 
Is  it  nothing  for  us  to  know  that  there  had  been  in  the  early 
history  of  our  race,  for  four  thousand  years,  supernatural 
interpositions  of  God  in  the  moral  affairs  of  men,  punishing 
sinful  nations  by  carrying  them  into  captivity,  and  after 
seventy  years  of  suffering  and  penitence  stirring  up  the 
heart  of  a Persian  king  to  set  them  free. 


190 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


The  two  foLindatioii-stones  on  which  Christianity  rests 
are, — 

1st,  That  events  have  been  clearlj^  predicted  two  hun- 
dred and  even  two  thousand  years  before  they  actually  tran- 
spired ; events  which  no  human  sagacity  or  foresight  could 
possibly  have  divined,  such,  for  example,  as  the  promise  of 
tlie  Messiah,  tlie  great  Deliverer  from  sin,  who  was  the  de- 
sire and  hope  of  Israel  in  all  their  families  and  tribes; 

2d,  That  there  have  been  from  age  to  age  supernatural 
interpositions  in  the  moral  history  of  our  world  for  the  in- 
struction and  moral  elevation  of  the  human  race.  In  all 
the  ages  God  has  been  leading  humanity  forward  towards 
its  predestinated  and  now  visible  goal. 

If  these  two  positions  can  be  proved,  then  Christianity 
stands  on  a foundation  firmer  than  the  pillars  of  heaven, 
and  more  stable  than  the  everlasting  hills. 

The  pi-oof  of  these  two  propositions  is  contained  in  this 
one  affirmation,  “The  Bible  as  a history  is  true.” 

This  we  believe  we  have  established  beyond  rational 
controversy^,  by  an  appeal  to  memorable  traditions  found 
amongst  all  nations;  to  the  testimony  of  independent  his- 
torians who  lived  in  Egypt,  in  Babylon,  in  Phoenicia,  in 
Pome;  to  existing  monuments  and  inscriptions,  coins  and 
signets,  found  in  the  tombs  of  the  kings  of  Egypt,  and  amid 
the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  Babylon,  and  Susa';  and,  lastly^,  to 
the  discoveries  and  conclusions  of  modern  science,  and  the 
admissions  of  Infidels  themselves.  As  an  argument  we  re- 
gard it  as  amounting  to  a demonstration,  and  we  are  just  as 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


I9I 

certain  of  tlie  truth  of  the  great  leading  events  in  tlie  Scrip- 
ture narrative,  as  we  are  of  any  occurrence  in  our  past  ex- 
perience. 

If,  then,  the  Bible  as  a history  be  true,  what  are  the 
logical  inferences  which  follow  from  that  fact? 

1.  As  a history  it  clearly  proves  the  interpositions  of 
God  in  our  world;  that  He  is  concerned  with  its  moral  his- 
tory ; that  He  has  at  various  periods  originated  visible  relig- 
ious institutions  and  economies  for  the  instruction  and  moral 
discipline  and  purification  and  elevation  of  humanity;  that 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  He  spake  in  time 
past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  and  in  the  latter  days 
has  spoken  by  His  Son.  When  once  the  historic  truth  and 
accuracy  of  the  Bible  is  admitted,  you  cannot  escape  this 
conclusion. 

2.  If  the  historic  accounts  contained  in  the  Bible  are 
true,  anotlier  inference  is,  that  the  writers  were  most  of 
them,  at  least,  inspired  men,  and  received  their  knowledge 
immediately  from  God. 

You  will  remember  that  as  yet  we  have  not  claimed  for 
the  Bible  this  peculiarity  above  all  other  books,  that  it  was 
written  under  inspiration  from  God.  We  have  been  willing 
to  place  it  on  a level  with  all  other  histories,  subject  it  to  the 
same  rules  of  historic  criticism,  and  ask  of  it,  as  we  would 
ask  of  Herodotus  or  Xenophon,  Is  the  Book  as  a history 
true?  If,  then,  as  a history  it  be  true,  let  us  see  what  are 
the  logical  consequences  of  that  truth.  Most  of  its  writers 
display  in  a striking  manner  the  knowledge  of  the  future. 


192 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


They  foretell  events  which  are  distant,  and  utterly  beyond 
human  saojacity  or  foresight  to  divine.  For  example,  Isaiah 
foretold  the  captivity  of  tlie  Jews,  that  it  should  continue 
seventy  years,  that  finally  Babylon  should  be  taken  by  the 
Pei-sians  during  a feast  by  turning  the  river  from  its  course ; 
and  Cyrus,  the  deliverer  of  the  Jews,  is  mentioned  by  name 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  all  this  occurred.  What 
other  rational,  or  even  possible,  inference  can  be  drawn 
from  thence  save  this,  that  it  was  revealed  to  him  by  God  ? 

Again,  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  ad- 
mitted by  Paine,  and,  we  think,  we  have  demonstrated  its 
authenticity.  In  this  book  thei-e  are  remarkable  prophe- 
cies; as,  for  example,  the  history,  characteristics,  and  fall  of 
the  four  great  empires  of  antiquity,  are  distinctly  symbol- 
ized in  the  image  of  ^Nebuchadnezzar.  The  time  of  the 
Messiah’s  appearing  is  also  distinctly  marked,  and  the  future 
history  of  the  church  to  the  end  of  time  is  outlined.  What, 
again,  can  be  the  rational  inference  from  all  this  but  that 
he  was  inspired  by  that  God  who,  as  he  himself  remarks, 
•‘revealeth  secrets  and  maketh  known  what  shall  be  in  the 
latter  days.”  The  Bible  presents  us  with  three  peculiar 
classes  of  supernatural  facts  : 

1.  There  are  miracles  of  Knowledge,  grounded  on  Di- 
vine Omniscience. 

2.  There  are  miracles  of  Holiness,  grounded  on  the 
Divine  Perfection. 

3.  There  are  miracles  of  Power,  grounded  on  the  Di- 
vine Omnipotence. 


LECTURE  X. 


Produce  your  cause  ^ saith  the  Lord ; bring  forth  your  strong  reasons^ 
saith  the  King  of  Jacob. 

Shew  the  things  that  are  to  come  hereof  ter  that  we  may  know  that  ye 
are  gods : yea,  do  good,  or  do  evil,  that  we  may  be  dismayed,  and  behold  it 
together. — Isaiah  xli.  21,  23. 

We  are  almost  disposed  to  regret  that  we  have  occupied 
so  much  ot’  the  allotted  time  for  this  course  of  lectures  on  the 
single  proposition  that  the  Bible  as  a history  is  true,  and 
thus  abridged  our  opportunity  for  discussing  more  thorough- 
ly the  proposicion  that  as  a revelation  it  is  Divine.  But 
really  the  evidence  is  so  voluminous  that  we  have  been  com- 
pelled to  omit  much  that  we  desired  and  intended  to  present, 
and  we  have  been  embarrassed  in  making  our  selections. 
The  argument  is  a cumulative  one,  and  every  year  is  adding 
to  the  fullness  and  completeness  of  the  historical  evidence. 
We  trust,  however,  we  have  presented  sufficient  to  leave  on 
your  minds  the  conviction  that  no  ancient  history  in  exist- 
ence can  present  so  many  confirmations  of  its  authenticity 
and  truth  as  the  Old  Testament  history. 

And  now  taking  the  history  as  it  lies  before  us,  what 
evidence  does  it  furnish  of  Divine  interposition  and  of  in- 
struction ? Can  it  be  regarded  in  any  sense  as  a revelation 

of  God  and  from  God  ? 

N 


194 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


First  of  all  and  most  obvious  of  all  is  this  lesson  that 
God  has  always  been  near  to  man,  always  interested  in  man, 
and  that  He  has  constantly  interposed  in  the  affairs  of  men. 
The  God  of  the  Old  Testament  is  something  more  than  “the 
soul  of  the  world,”  as  Aristotle  taught,  something  more  than 
an  “ unconscious  mind,”  if  such  a phrase  be  not  indeed  a con- 
tradiction in  terms.  God  is  a righteous  God,  a moral  Gov- 
ernor, and  a just  Judge.  In  His  moral  government  of  the 
world  He  has  always  subordinated  the  “natural”  to  the 
“moral,”  the  “physical”  to  the  “spiritual.”  Furthermore, 
in  carrying  forward  the  moral  order  of  the  world  He  has 
employed  human  agency.  He  has  chosen  a class  of  men  who 
by  superior  endowment,  and  spiritual  insight,  and  special 
illumination,  have  been  signalized  as  Seers,  Prophets,  and 
Messengers.  These  have  been  employed  as  the  Teachers 
and  Lawgivers  of  men.  They  seem  to  have  been  endowed 
with  a superhuman  knowledge,  and  their  teaching  and  mis- 
sion accompanied  by  supernatural  powers.  There  has,  thus, 
always  been  furnished  a kind  of  evidence  which  their  con- 
temporaries have  accepted  as  proof  that  they  were  sent  of 
God.  We  now  desire  to  ask  the  question.  Does  that  proof 
seem  adequate  ? 

I ask  your  attention  this  afternoon  to  the  first  fact,  the 
possession  of  supernatural  knowledge,  which  I shall  designate 
the  Miracle  of  Knowledge,  for,  as  Hume  admits,  “All 
prophecies  are  leal  miracles.” 

We  point  then  to  the  fact  that  in  the  sacred  writings 
*♦ 

there  is  displayed  a knowledge  of  the  future  above  and  be- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


195 


yoiid  all  the  teachings  of  reason  and  experience,  a super- 
natural, snperhunian  foresight,  more  remarkable  even  than 
their  records  of  supernatural  power. 

We  have  remote  events  foretold  with  minuteness  and 
accuracj^,  events  which  lay  absolutely  beyond  the  reach  of 
human  sagacity,  and  human  prevision.  We  have  number- 
less predictions  in  relation  to  national  affairs,  and  individual 
characters  and  actions,  which  could  never  have  been  fore- 
seen by  a finite  intelligence,  all  of  which  have  been  literally 
and  circumstantially  fulfilled.  And  we  therefore  conclude 
that  this  knowledge  must  have  been  supernaturally  com- 
municated to  the  writers,  and  that  the  book  in  which  these 
prophetic  annunciations  are  found,  must  be  regarded  as 
containing  a revelation  from  God. 

This  is  the  argument  which  is  urged  in  our  text.  Let 
them  bring  forth  their  strong  reasons,  or  arguments,  and 
show  us  what  shall  happen,  shew  us  things  that  are  to  come, 
that  we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods.  In  the  spirit  of  our 
text  we  may  challenge  every  form  of  false  religion  and 
every  species  of  skepticism,  and  say.  Produce  your  cause 
and  bring  forth  your  strong  reasons,  because  we  are  sure 
that  the  argument  from  prophecy  is  impregnable  and  un- 
answerable. Prophecies,  with  their  fulfillments,  are  unques- 
tionably miracles  of  knowledge,  and  bring  a supernatural 
element  into  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Kew  Testament. 

In  order  to  establish  the  validity  of  this  argument  there 
are  two  conditions  to  be  fulfilled. 

The  first  is  to  show  the  distinct  priority  of  the  prophecy 


196 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


to  its  corresponding  fulfillment  in  history,  or  the  far  ante- 
rior date  of  the  former  to  the  latter,  so  as  to  place  the  ful- 
fillment beyond  the  possible  calculation  of  human  foresight. 

The  second  is  to  show  from  independent  historic  sources 
that  the  prediction  was  really  and  substantially  fulfilled. 

When  these  two  conditions  are  fulfilled,  the  argument 
from  prophecy  becomes  a demonstration  that  the  knowledge 
possessed  by  the  sacred  writers  was  derived  from  super- 
natural sources.  There  are  many  illustrations  which  might 
be  given ; we  shall  select  only  two. 

Our  first  illustration  of  this  argument  will  be  taken  from 
the  predictions  of  the  Dispersion,  the  Prosecutions,  the  Suf- 
erings,  and  Preservation  of  the  Jews  as  a distinct  nation 
among  the  other  nations  of  the  earth.  These  predictions 
are  contained  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Deu- 
teronomy, verses  15,  20  to  28,  31  to  34,  36  and  37,  47  to  51, 
and  61  to  68. 

The  distinct  priority  of  these  predictions  to  the  events 
of  history  in  which  they  have  been,  and  are  now  being  ful- 
filled, cannot  be  questioned  by  the  most  obstinate  skepticism. 
They  began  to  be  fulfilled  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
70  A.  D.  They  are  being  fulfilled  in  every  part  of  the  hab- 
itable globe,  and  are  fulfilled  every  day  under  our  own 
eyes. 

The  language  in  which  the  book  containing  these  pre- 
dictions was  written  is  of  itself  sufficient  proof  of  their  an- 
tiquity. The  Hebrew  ceased  to  be  spoken  as  a living 
language  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  and  there  was  no 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


197 


grammar  of  tliat  language  made  until  a period  long  after. 

About  277  B.  c.  the  Pentateuch  was  translated  into 
Greek  for  the  use  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  who  now  spoke 
only  the  Greek  language,  and  from  the  almost  universal 
prevalence  of  that  language  became  widely"  diffused  and  ac- 
cessible to  the  learned  of  every  land.  That  Greek  transla- 
tion is  extant,  and  in  the  hands  of  almost  every  scholar,  thus 
proving  that  the  prediction  of  the  dispersion  and  sufferings 
of  the  Jews  was  in  existence  at  least  340  years  before  a>ny 
events  occurred  which  are  a fulfillment  of  them. 

We  may  proceed  yet  further  back  in  the  antiquity  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  When  the  ten  tribes  revolted  from 
the  dominion  of  Rehoboam,  975  B.  c.  (nearly  one  hundred 
years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem),  and  founded  a 
separate  kingdom,  they  took  along  with  them  the  five  Books 
of  Moses,  and  in  subsequent  years  translated  them  into  the 
Samaritan  dialect.  Here,  then,  we  have  two  distinct  copies 
of  the  Pentateuch,  one  the  Hebrew,  the  other  the  Samaritan; 
one  kept  by  the  tribe  of  J udah,  the  other  by  the  ten  tribes 
of  Israel.  ^low,  had  there  been  any  disposition  to  tamper 
with,  or  alter  the  sacred  text,  these  two  peoples  would  have 
acted  as  a mutual  check  upon  each  other,  the  Jews  having 
no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans ; and  the  result  is,  that,  with 
few  exceptions,  they  are  in  perfect  agreement.  Here,  then, 
we  are  carried  backwards  three  thousand  years,  and  there 
we  find  we  have  extant,  predictions  uttered  by  Moses  in  re- 
lation to  the  future  history  of  the  Jews,  which, ^as3we  will 
now  proceed  to  show,  have  been  remarkably  fulfilled. 


198 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES.^ 


I.  First  as  to  their  Dispersion  amongst  all  nations  of 
the  earth.  These  predictions  are  contained  in  Deuteronomy 
xxvii.  49,  50,  63,  25,  36,  64,  65,  68. 

“ The  Lord  shall  bring  a nation  against  thee  from  afar, 
from  the  end  of  the  earth,  as  swift  as  the  eagle  flieth;  a na- 
tion whose  tongue  thou  shalt  not  understand; 

‘‘  A nation  of  fierce  countenance,  which  shall  not  re- 
gard the  person  of  the  old,  nor  show  favor  to  the  young.” 

“ The  Lord  shall  cause  thee  to  he  smitten  before  thine 
enemies:  thou  shalt  go  out  one  way  against  them,  and  flee 
seven  ways  before  them:  and  shalt  he  removed  into  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth.” 

“The  Lord  shall  bring  thee,  and  thy  king  which  thou 
shalt  set  over  thee,  unto  a nation  which  neither  thou  nor  thy 
fathers  have  known.” 

“And  the  Lord  shall  scatter  thee  among  all  people, 
from  the  one  end  of  the  earth  even  unto  the  other. 

“ And  among  these  nations  shalt  thou  find  no  ease,  nei- 
ther shall  the  sole  of  thy  foot  have  rest.” 

1.  As  to  the  agent  God  would  employ  in  dispersing  the 
Jews,  it  is  said  that  it  shall  be  a nation  from  afar,  from  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  swift  as  an  eagle,  of  a strange  tongue,  a 
fierce  countenance,  and  intensely  cruel,  sparing  neither  man 
nor  beast. 

All  this  was  strikingly  fulfilled  in  the  character  of  the 
Roman  army  which  invaded  and  overthrew  Jerusalem. 
That  armj^  was  literally  composed  of  men  who  came  from 
“the  ends  of  the  earth,”  from  England,  France,  and  Spain; 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


199 


and  Vespasian  and  Adrian,  the  two  conquerors,  were  both 
from  Britain.  The  Romans,  too,  from  the  rapidity  of  their 
conquests  and  the  fierceness  of  their  attacks,  are  well  com- 
pared to  “eagles,”  and  they  always  carried  them  as  the  en- 
sign of  their  armies.  Tlie  Latin  tongue  was  a “strange” 
language  to  the  Jews,  and  still  more  the  languages  of  the 
nations  who  composed  the  Roman  army.  And  it  is  well 
known  that  the  old  Romans  were  of  a “fierce  countenance,” 
stern,  undaunted,  cruel,  and  hard-hearted,  “who  regarded 
not  the  person  of  the  old,  and  showed  no  favor  to  the 
young.”  Josephus  says  that  Vespasian  slew  all,  man  by 
man,  and  showed  no  mercy  to  age,  out  of  hatred  to  the 
nation. 

2.  The  manner  of  their  dispersion  is  clearly  set  forth. 
They  were  to  be  plucked  from  off*  their  lands,  smitten  be- 
fore their  enemies,  going  out  one  way  against  them  and  flee- 
ing seven  wa3"S  before  them.  The  manner  of  their  disper- 
sion was  bj"  the  sword,  by  banishment,  and  by  flight. 

The  Romans  destroyed  all  their  cities,  and  ravaged  the 
whole  country.  The  inhabitants  who  escaped  the  sword 
were  forcibly  expelled  from  Judea,  and  fled  as  houseless 
wanderers  into  the  surrounding  country.  Many  of  them 
were  carried  into  Egypt  and  sold  as  slaves;  and  a public 
edict  was  published  by  Adrian  prohibiting  them  on  pain  of 
death  from  setting  foot  in  Jerusalem,  or  even  approaching 
the  country  around  it.  From  that  time  to  this  their  land 
has  been  in  possession  of  foreign  masters,  few  of  the  Jews 
being  permitted  to  dwell  there,  and  these  under  the  most 


200 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


servile  and  humiliating  conditions.  Heathens,  Mohamme- 
dans, and  Christians  have  each  in  their  turn  possessed  Judea; 
it  has  been  the  prey  of  the  Saracens;  the  descendants  of 
Ishmael  have  overrun  it;  but  the  Israelites  have  never  been 
permitted  to  possess  it,  though  they  have  often  desired  to 
return.  Amid  the  revolutions  of  states  and  empires  during 
the  past  eighteen  centuries,  the  Jews  alone  have  been  aliens 
from  the  home  of  their  fathers. 

3.  The  extent  of  their  dispersions  is  more  remarkable 
than  the  manner  of  it.  They  were  to  be  “removed  into  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,”  and  to  be  “ scattered  among  all 
people  from  the  one  end  of  the  earth  even  unto  the  other.’ 

There  is  not  a country  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  where 
the  Jews  are  unknown,  nor  a city  of  any  note  where  they 
are  not  to  be  found.  They  are  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa, 
America,  and  in  the  islands  of  the  sea.  They  are  citizens 
of  the  world  without  a country  and  a home.  Neither 
mountains  nor  rivers  nor  deserts  nor  oceans,  the  natural 
boundaries  of  other  nations,  have  terminated  their  wander- 
ings. They  tread  the  snows  of  Siberia  and  the  sands  of 
Arabia.  They  are  found  in  China  and  Japan,  in  Persia 
and  India.  We  have  met  them  in  Australia  and  New  Zea- 
land, Taheite  and  South  America.  From  St.  Petersbui-g 
to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  from  Britain  to  Madagascar, 
from  Labrador  to  Patagonia,  from  New  York  to  San  Fran- 
cisco, the  Jew  is  found.  No  inhabitant  of  the  intervening 
regions  would  be  known  everywhere  except  a Jew,  and  the 
great  peculiarity  is  that  thei-e  is  no  region  which  he  can  call 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


201 


his  home.  While  scattered  through  every  nation  he  does 
not  belong  to  any  nation.  There  is  a peculiarity  in  his 
physiognomy,  and  in  his  circumstances,  which  distinguishes 
him  from  every  nation  under  heaven.  You  can  perceive  a 
restlessness  in  his  manners,  an  anxiety  in  his  countenance, 
and  an  unsettledness  in  his  operations,  which  show  him  to 
be  nowhere  at  ease,  and  nowhere  at  home.  He  finds  no 
rest  for  the  soles  of  his  feet,  and  his  heart  trembles  and 
beats  sorrowfully  everywhere. 

II.  Let  us  see  how  the  predictions  of  their  Persecu- 
tions and  Sufierings  have  all  been  fulfilled.  These  are 
found  in  Deuteronomy  xxviii.  37,  46,  48,  31,  33,  34,  32,  65, 
66,  68. 

“ Thou  shalt  become  an  astonishment,  a proverb,  and  a 
by-word,  among  all  nations  whither  the  Lord  shall  lead 
thee.” 

“And  they  [the  curses  of  God]  shall  be  upon  thee  for 
a sign  and  a wonder,  and  upon  thy  seed  forever.” 

“ Therefore  shalt  thou  serve  thine  enemies,  which  the 
Lord  shall  send  against  thee,  in  hunger,  and  in  thirst,  and 
in  nakedness,  and  in  want  of  all  things:  and  he  shall  put  a 
yoke  of  iron  upon  thj^  neck,  until  he  have  destroyed  thee.” 

“ Thine  ox  shall  be  slain  before  thine  eyes,  and  thou 
shalt  not  eat  thereof:  thine  ass  shalt  be  violently  taken  away 
from  before  thy  face,  and  shall  not  be  restored  to  thee:  thy 
sheep  shall  be  given  unto  thine  enemies,  and  thou  shalt 
have  none  to  rescue  them.” 

“ The  fruit  of  thy  land,  and  all  thy  labors,  shall  a na- 


202 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


tioii  which  thou  kiiowest  not  eat  up ; and  thou  shalt  be  only 
oppressed  and  crushed  alway  : 

‘‘  So  that  thou  shalt  be  mad  for  the  sight  of  thine  eyes 
which  thou  shalt  see.” 

“Thy  sons  and  thy  daughtei’s  shall  be  given  unto  an- 
other people,  and  thine  eyes  shall  look,  and  fail  with  long- 
ing for  them  all  the  day  long;  and  there  shall  be  no  might 
in  thine  hand.” 

“ They  shall  cast  their  silver  in  the  streets,  and  their 
gold  shall  be  removed:  their  silver  and  their  gold  shall  not 
be  able  to  deliver  them  in  the  day  of  the  wrath  of  the  Lord” 
(Ezek.  vii.  19). 

“And  among  these  nations  shalt  thou  lind  no  ease,  nei- 
ther shall  the  sole  of  thy  foot  have  rest:  but  the  Lord  shall 
give  thee  there  a trembling  heart,  and  failing  of  eyes,  and 
sorrow  of  mind.” 

“And  thy  life  shall  hang  in  doubt  before  thee;  and 
thou  shalt  fear  day  and  night,  and  shalt  have  none  assur- 
ance of  thy  life.” 

“And  the  Lord  shall  bring  thee  into  Egypt  again  with 
ships,  by  the  way  whereof  I spake  unto  thee.  Thou  shalt 
see  it  no  more  again:  and  there  ye  shall  be  sold  unto  your 
enemies  for  bondsmen  and  bondswomen,  and  no  man  shall 
buy  you.” 

1.  Tliey  were  to  be  perpetually  exposed  to  derision  and 
mockery  and  insult.  “ Thou  shalt  become  an  astonishment, 
a proverb,  and  a b}^-word,  among  all  nations  whither  the 
Lord  shall  lead  thee.” 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


203 


There  is  a passnge  in  the  first  volume  of  Hallam’s  ‘‘His- 
toiy  of  Europe”  which  shows  how  strikingly  this  prophecy 
has  been  fulfilled.  Speaking  of  the  condition  of  the  Jews 
in  the  middle  ages,  he  says:  “They  were  everywhere  a sub- 
ject of  popular  insult.  A time  of  festivity  to  others  was 
often  the  season  of  mockery  to  them.  It  was  customary  at 
Toulouse  to  smite  them  on  the  face  every  Easter.  At  Be- 
ziers they  were  attacked  with  stones  from  Palm  Sunday  to 
Easter,  an  anniversaiy  of  insult  and  injury  generalh^  pro- 
ductive of  bloodshed,  and  to  which  the  populace  were  regu- 
larly instigated  by  a sermon  from  the  bishop.” 

Benjamin  of  Tedula,  who  traveled  in  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury through  a great  part  of  Europe  and  Asia,  found  the 
Jews  everywhere  oppressed,  particularly  in  the  Holy  Land. 
To  this  day  the  Jews  who  reside  in  Palestine,  or  who  have 
resorted  there  in  old  age  that  their  bones  may  repose  in  their 
own  land,  are  abused  by  Greeks,  Armenians,  and  Europe- 
ans; and  the  haughty  deportment  of  the  Turkish  soldiers 
toward  the  poor  and  persecuted  Jew,  is  painted  to  the  life 
hj  the  prophet,  “The  stranger  that  is  within  thee  shalt  get 
up  above  thee  very  high,  and  thou  shalt  come  down  veiy 
low.”  In  Persia  even  in  modern  times  they  cannot  appear 
in  public,  much  less  perform  religious  ceremonies,  without 
being  treated  with  scorn  and  contempt.  At  Tripoli  when  a 
criminal  is  condemned  to  death,  the  first  Jew  who  happens 
to  be  on  hand  is  compelled  to  become  executioner,  a degre- 
dation  to  which  no  Moor  is  subjected.  In  Arabia  they  were 
treated  with  more  contempt  than  in  Turkey.  The  remark 


204 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES, 


is  common  to  the  most  recent  travelers  in  Asia  and  Africa, 
that  the  Jews  are  astonished,  and  the  natives  are  indignant, 
at  any  act  of  kindness  or  even  civility  that  is  done  to  this 
‘‘despised  nation.”  And  in  former  years  even  in  London 
the}^  were  compelled  to  live  in  a locality  known  as  the  Old 
Jewry.  That  the  name  “Jew”  is  still  a by-word  and  a 
proverb  among  all  nations,  is  a fact  well  known  to  all.  A 
Jew  is  the  synonym  for  a cheat.  To  be  “Jewed”  is  to  be 
cheated,  all  the  world  over.  There  is  a common  proverb  by 
which  men  express  the  most  cruel  and  inhuman  treatment, 
“You  use  me  worse  than  a Jew.”  What  a detestable  char- 
acter has  Shakspeare  drawn  of  a Jew  in  the  “Merchant  of 
Venice.” 

2.  They  were  to  be  i^erpetually  spoiled  and  oppressed. 
The  fruit  of  their  lands  was  to  be  taken  from  them,  their 
oxen  were  to  be  slain  before  them,  their  sheep  given  over 
to  their  enemies,  their  silver  was  to  be  cast  into  the  street, 
and  their  gold  removed,  their  sons  and  daughters  were  to  be 
given  to  other  people,  and  themselves  condemned  and  re- 
duced to  slaver3^ 

The  history  of  the  treatment  of  the  Jews  hy  the  nations 
among  whom  they  sojourned,  is  little  else  than  a history  of 
robbery  and  spoliation.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  kings  of 
France  to  employ  them  as  a sponge  to  suck  their  subjects’ 
money,  which  might  then  be  squeezed  out  of  the  Jews  with 
less  odium  than  by  imposing  direct  taxation.  It  is  almost 
incredible  to  what  an  extent  these  extortions  were  carried. 
A series  of  alternate  tolerations  and  persecutions  was  borne 


UNIVERSITY  LECIURES. 


205 


by  this  extraordinary  people,  and  at  the  same  time  they  dis- 
played an  invincible  perseverance,  and  a talent  for  acquiring 
wealth,  which  kept  pace  with  the  exactions  of  their  plun- 
derers. Phillip  Augustus  released  all  the  Christians  in  his 
dominions  from  their  liabilities  to  the  Jews,  reserving  a fifth 
part  unto  himself.  Richard,  John,  and  Henry  III.  often 
extorted  monej"  from  them.  Henry  by  the  most  unscrupu- 
lous and  unsparing  measures  reduced  them  to  abject  poverty. 
An  English  historian  says  he  always  polled  the  Jews  at 
every  low  ebb  of  his  fortune.  His  extortions  were  so  great, 
says  Rapin,  that  he  reduced  the  miserable  wretches  to  such 
extremity  that  they  desired  to  depart  from  his  kingdom ; 
but  even  self-banishment  was  denied  them.  Edward  I. 
completed  their  misery,  seized  upon  their  property,  and 
banished  them  from  the  kingdom. 

Not  only  have  ihej^  been  robbed  of  their  property,  but 
also  of  their  families;  their  sons  and  their  daughters  have 
been  t^ken  from  them  and  given  to  other  people.  The 
fourth  Council  of  Toledo  ordered  that  all  their  children 
should  be  taken  from  them,  lest  they  should  partake  of  their 
errors;  and  they  were  shut  up  in  monasteries.  When  they 
were  banished  from  Portugal,  the  king  ordered  all  their 
children  to  be  retained  and  baptized.  We  have  had  exam- 
ples of  this  treatment  in  our  day;  one  celebrated  case  oc- 
curred only  lately  in  the  Papal  states. 

3.  They  were  to  be  the  subjects  of  cruel  persecution. 
Their  enemies  shall  put  a yoke  of  iron  on  their  neck;  they 
shall  have  sorrow  of  mind,  and  failing  of  eyes,  and  trembling 


2o6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


of  heart;  their  life  sh  ill  lung  in  doubt,  and  they  sh  ill  have 
no  assurance  of  their  lives.  The  history  of  the  sufferings 
of  the  Jews  is  a perpetual  tale  of  horrors. 

Basnage,  the  elaborate  historian  of  the  Jews,  says  : 

“ Kings  have  often  employed  the  severest  edicts,  and  the 
hands  of  the  executioner,  to  destroy  them  ; the  seditious 
multitude  lias  performed  massacres  and  executions  infinitely 
more  tragical  than  princes.  Botli  kings  and  people,  Chris- 
tians and  Mohammedans,  have  united  in  designs  to  ruin  this 
nation,  and  have  not  been 'able  to  effect  it.  The  Jews  have 
from  age  to  age  passed  through  miseries  and  persecutions 
and  torrents  of  blood. 

“Emperors,  kings,  and  caitiffs,  all  united  in  subjecting 
them  to  the  iron  yoke.  Constantine  after  having  suppressed 
a revolt  they  had  raised,  commanded  their  eai’s  to  be  cut  off, 
and  dispersed  them  as  fugitives  and  vagabonds  into  differ- 
ent countries,  whither  they  carried  the  marks  of  suffering 
and  shame.  Justinian  abolished  their  synagogues,  prohib- 
ited their  performing  worship  even  in  caves,  rendered  their 
testimony  inadmissible,  deprived  them  of  their  natural  right 
to  bequeath  property,  and,  when  such  oppressive  measures 
led  to  an  insurrection,  their  property  was  confiscated,  many 
were  beheaded,  and  so  bloody  did  the  executions  become 
that  all  the  Jews  of  the  country  trembled.” 

In  Spain,  conversion,  imprisonment,  or  banishment  were 
the  only  alternatives.  In  France  a similar  fate  awaited 
them.  Gibbon  says  that  at  Vendome,  Treves,  Mentz, 
Spires,  and  Worms,  many  thousands  were  piilaged  and  mas- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


207 


sacred.  A remnant  was  saved  by  a feigned  conversion,  but 
many  barricaded  their  houses,  and  precipitated  themselves 
with  their  wealth  and  their  families  into  the  flames.  They 
fled  from  country  to  country  seeking  rest,  but  all  in  vain. 
Asia  afforded  them  no  asylum.  Mohammed,  whose  impos- 
ture had  become  the  faith  and  law  of  the  millions  of  Asia, 
had  in  the  precepts  of  the  Koran  infused  into  the  hearts  of 
his  followers  an  intense  hatred  of  the  Jews,  and  he  set  the 
example  of  a relentless  persecution  which  at  this  day  the 
Mohammedans  do  not  cease  to  follow.  In  England,  also, 
they  suffered  great  cruelties.  During  the  Crusades  the 
whole  nation  united  in  persecuting  them.  In  one  single  in- 
stance in  the  city  of  York,  flfteen  hundred  Jews,  in- 
cluding women  and  children,  were  refused  quarter,  they 
could  not  purchase  their  lives  at  any  price,  their  ‘‘gold  was 
not  able  to  deliver  them,”  and  frantic  with  despair  they 
perished  with  mutual  slaughter. 

4.  Among  all  the  nations  through  which  they  were 
scattered  they  were  “to  And  no  rest.” 

For  many  years  after  their  dispersion  they  found  no 
rest  in  Europe,  Asia,  or  Africa.  They  have  been  expelled  * 
from  one  kingdom  after  another.  Phillip  Augustus  ex- 
pelled the  whole  nation  from  France.  Louis  IX.  twice 
« 

banished  and  twice  recalled  them.  Edward  I.  banished 
them  from  England,  and  they  were  not  permitted  to  return 
till  Cromwell’s  time.  They  were  expelled  from  Spain  by 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  and  800,000  persons  departed  from 
the  kingdom.  By  an  imperial  “ukase”  dated  Oct.  31,  1827, 


2o8 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


they  are  not  allowed  to  reside,  even  for  a limited  period,  in 
any  of  the  cities  of  Russia,  without  a special  permit  from 
the  government. 

III.  Their  Preservation  as  a distinct  nation,  notwith- 
standing their  sufterings,  persecutions,  and  universal  disper- 
sion, next  demands  attention.  “I  will  make  a full  end  of 
all  the  nations  whither  I have  driven  thee  : but  I will  not 
make  a full  end  of  thee  ” 

^Notwithstanding  the  wars  and  persecutions  and  massa- 
cres to  which  the  Jews  have  been  subjected  for  ages,  they 
still  exist,  and  are  very  numerous.  It  is  estimated  there  are 
five  millions  of  them  scattered  over  the  globe.  God  has 
made  a “full  end”  of  many  of  the  nations  that  afflicted 
them.  Egypt  and  Assyria,  Babylon  and  ancient  Rome,  are 
no  more,  but  the  Jews  are  everywhere. 

]No  nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth  haS'  been  preserved 
half  so  long.  The  northern  nations  which  made  their  in- 
cursions into  the  south  of  Europe  are  now  no  more,  they 
have  been  lost  and  swallowed  up  in  the  common  mass.  The 
Gauls  who  went  forth  in  shoals  to  seek  their  fortunes  in  for- 
• eign  lands  are  lost,  and  no  traces  of  them  can  now  be 
found.  In  England  it  is  impossible  to  determine  where  the 
descendants  of  the  ancient  Britons  are,  or  in  any  way  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  Romans,  Saxons,  Danes,  and 
Normans,  who  at  different  periods  have  been  the  conquerors 
and  owners  of  the  soil.  But  here  is  a nation  four  thousand 
years  old,  which  for  two  thousand  years  lias  been  scattered 
among  all  nations  without  losing  its  identity.  The  Jews 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


209 


are  as  distinct  a nation  at  this  very  hour  as  they  were  when 
they  dwelt  alone  in  the  mountain  fastnesses  of  Judea. 

They  also  wear  the  same  physiognomy,  the  same  con- 
figuration and  cast  of  countenance,  which  distinguished 
them  three  thousand  3’ears  ago.  In  the  tombs  of  the  kings 
of  Egypt  there  are  paintings  of  the  “Hebrew  slaves”  which 
were  made  at  an  earlier  period.  These  countenances  are  as 
perfectly  Jewish  as  the  countenance  of  any  dealer  in  old 
clothes  who  perambulates  the  streets  of  London  to-day. 

The  Jews  have  been  scattered  among  every  nation  on 
the  earth  ; they  have  been  robbed,  spoiled,  persecuted,  op- 
pressed, trodden  under  foot ; yet  they  have  continued  for 
four  thousand  years  a distinct  people.  The  Jews  are  the 
living  witnesses  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

As  a second  illustration  of  the  Miracle  of  Knowledge, 
I direct  your  attention  to  the  numerous  prophecies  scattered 
over  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  foretell  the  com- 
ing of  a mysterious  personage, — a Divine  Man  who  should 
in  some  inexplicable  manner  unite  in  one  personality  the 
Divine  and  human,  and  by  virtue  of  this  mytserious  union 
should  redeem  humanity  from  sin,  and  elevate  the  human 
race  to  a higher  plane  of  life, — a Divine  Man  who  in  future 
ages  shall  wear  the  names  of  Redeemer,  Saviour,  King  of 
Righteousness,  Prince  of  Peace. 

It  would  be  impossible  for  me  now  to  quote  all  the  pas- 
sages from  the  Old  Testament  in  which  the  coming  of  such 
a personage  is  foretold.  Many  of  them  are  familiar  to  Bible 

readers.  “The  King  cometh,”  “thy  Salvation  cometh,” 

o 


210 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


“ the  Redeemer cometh,”  “the  Lord  cometh/’  “the  Messen- 
ger of  the  Covenant  cometh,”  “the  Desire  of  nations  shall 
come,”  “ the  Messiah  the  Prince  shall  come,”  “ blessed  is 
he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,” — are  expressions 
wliich  frequently  occur  in  the  books  of  the  prophets.  The 
most  remarkable  text,  which  in  all  ages  has  been  regarded 
both  by  Jewish  and  Christian  commentators  as  an  emphatic 
prediction  of  the  coming  of  Ciirist,  is  Isaiah  ix.  6,  7.  “ For 

unto  us  a child  is  born,  unto  us  a son  is  given  : and  the  gov- 
ernment shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  : and  his  name  shall  be 
called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The  mighty  God,  The  ever- 
lasting Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his 
government  and  peace  theie  shall  be  no  end.” 

The  predictions  of  the  coming  of  Christ  are  not  confined 
to  general  assurances  of  salvation  and  deliverance,  which  a 
perverse  criticism  might  interpret  as  impersonal ; but  there 
are  numerous  prophecies  as  to  the  parentage,  place  of  nativ- 
ity, time  of  appearing,  and  personal  characteristics,  which 
determine  the  real  personality  of  the  Messiah. 

1.  The  parentage  of  the  Messiah  is  carefully  marked. 
He  was  to  be  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  : “]n  thee  and  thy 
seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.”  But 
Abraham  had  two  sons,  one  by  Hagar  and  another  by  Sarah  ; 
which  was  the  child  of  promise?  The  answer  is,  “ In  Isaac 
shall  thy  seed  be  called.”  Isaac  had  two  sons,  Jacob  and 
Esau;  from  which  shall  the  Christ  descend?  “ The  elder 
shall  serve  the  younger  ; ” thus  Jacob  is  distinguished.  But 
Jacob  had  twelve  sons,  and  we  need  a further  limitation. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


21 1 


“The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  a lawgiver 
from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  (the  Sent-One, — the 
Messiah)  come  ; and  unto  him  shall  the  gathering  of  the  peo- 
ple be.”  Judah  becomes  a numerous  tribe,  and  we  need 
some  more  specific  limitation.  “ In  that  day  there  shall  be 
a root  of  Jesse,  which  shall  stand  for  an  ensign  of  the  peo- 
ple ; to  it  shall  the  Gentiles  seek.”  David,  the  son  of  Jesse, 
became  king  of  Israel,  and  David’s  descendant  became 
David’s  Lord. 

2.  The  place  of  His  nativity  is  distinctly  marked  in 

Micah  V.  2.  “ But  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou 

be  little  among  the  thousands  of  J udah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall 
he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ; whose 
goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting.”  This 
was  one  of  the  most  ancient  cities  of  Judah,  the  birthplace 
of  David,  and  so  clearly  was  this  marked  as  the  place  of  the 
Messiah’s  birth  that  the  scribes  and  chief  priests  in  Jerusalem 
could  at  once  answer  the  inquiry  of  Herod  (Math.  ii.  3-6). 
He  gathered  all  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people  to- 
gether, and  demanded  of  them  where  Christ  should  be  born. 
“And  they  said  unto  him,  In  Bethlehem  of  Judea:  for 
thus  it  is  written  by  the  prophet.” 

3.  The  time  of  the  Messiah’s  coming  was  definitelj^ 
fixed. 

(1.)  He  was  to  appear  in  the  second  temple,  that  is, 
before  the  second  temple  was  destroyed. 

When  the  Israelites  returned  to  Jerusalem  after  the  sev- 
enty years  captiviD"  in  Babylon,  and  had  commenced  to 


212 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


rebuild  the  temple,  “the  ancient  men  ” who  had  seen  the  for- 
mer temple  built  by  Solomon  in  all  its  grandeur,  and  now 
saw  how  much  inferior  the  present  one  was,  wept  with  a 
loud  voice.”  The  Lord  directed  the  prophet  Haggai  to  com- 
fort them  with  the  assurance  that  though  the  present  tem- 
ple was  inferior  in  architectural  beauty,  yet  it  would  surpass 
it  in  moral  grandeur.  ‘ ‘ The  glory  of  this  latter  house  shall 
be  greater  than  of  the  former.”  “I  will  shake  all  nations, 
and  the  Desire  of  all  N'ations  shall  come  : and  I will  fill  this 
house  with  glory.”  (Haggai  ii.  7,  9.)  The  first  temple  was 
destroyed  on  the  10th  of  August,  583  b.  c.  The  second 
temple  was  built  by  Cyrus,  500  b.  c.  After  Christ  had 
appeared  in  it,  it  was  destroyed  by  the  Romans,  70  a.  d. 

(2).  He  was  to  come  before  J udah  ceased  to  furnish  a 
governor  or  ruler. 

“ The  scepter  shall  not  depart  from  Judah  nor  a lawgiv- 
er from  beneath  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  (the  Sent-One, — the 
Messiah)  come  ; and  unto  him  shall  the  gathering  of  the 
people  be”  (Gen.  xlix.  10).  When  Christ  came,  a king 
reigned  over  the  Jews,  and  the  council  of  the  nation  had 
legislative  authority.  The  land  had  become  a Roman  prov- 
ince, but  the  remains  of  regal  power  still  lingered  in  Judah. 
But  in  the  very  year  that  Christ  made  his  appearance  in  the 
temple,  the  twelfth  of  his  age,  Archelaus  the  king  was  de- 
throned and  banished,  Coponius  was  appointed  procurator, 
and  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  degraded  to  a province  of 
Syria.  The  power  of  life  and  death  had  up  to  this  time  been 
vested  in  the  Sanhedrim,  but  when  the  Messiah  came  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


213 


power  departed,  and  in  answer  to  Pilate  they  said,  “It  is 
not  now  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death.” 

(3).  He  was  to  come  at  the  end  of  a definite  number  of 
years  from  the  issuing  of  the  decree  to  restore  and  rebuild 
Jerusalem.  Dan.  ix.  24,  25,  26,  27. 

“ Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people  and  up- 
on thy  holy  city,  to  finish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  an 
end  of  sins,  and  to  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to 
bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  the  vision 
and  prophecy,  and  to  annoint  the  most  Holy. 

“ Know  therefore  and  understand  that  from  the  going 
forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusa- 
lem, unto  the  Messiah  the  Prince,  shall  be  seven  weeks,  and 
threescore  and  two  weeks  : the  street  shall  be  built  again, 
and  the  wall,  even  in  troublous  times. 

“And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be 
cut  off,  but  not  for  himself  : and  the  people  'of  the  prince 
that  shall  come  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  ; and 
the  end  thereof  shall  be  with  a flood,  and  unto  the  end  of 
the  war  desolations  are  determined. 

“And  he  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many  for  one 
week  : and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he  shall  cause  the  sac- 
rifice and  the  oblation  to  cease,  and  for  the  overspreading  of 
abominations  he  shall  make  it  desolate,  even  until  the  con- 
summation, and  that  determined  shall  be  poured  upon  the 
desolate.” 

To  understand  this  prediction  we  must  remember  that 
both  in  symbolic  and  prophetic  language  one  day  stands  for 


214 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


one  year.  So  we  read  in  Ezekiel  iv.  6,  “ I have  appointed 
thee  each  day  for  a year.”  This  is  the  uniform  standard  of 
prophetic  time.  Seventy  i^rophetic  weeks  are  490  prophetic 
days,  literally,  490  years.  The  Jews  had  also  sabbatic  years, 
that  is,  each  seventh  year  was  a sabbath  by  which  their 
years  were  divided  into  weeks  of  years,  each  week  contain- 
ing seven  years  (Leviticus  xxv.  4).  Seventy  sabbatic  weeks, 
again,  are  490  years.  This  is  a principle  of  interpretation 
which  is  sustained  by  the  soundest  exegesis,  and  approved 
by  the  very  highest  authoritj^  as,  for  example,  Mede,  Sir 
Isaac  Kewton,  Bishop  ISTewton,  Keith,  Hengstenberg,  Cum- 
mings, and  many  others. 

This  period  of  “ seventy  prophetic  weeks,”  or  490  years, 
is  marked  by  a given  terminus  a quo  and  a given  terminus 
ad  quern  ; the  commencement  and  the  close  are  clearly  de- 
lined. 

The  commencement  of  this  period  of  490  years  is  to  be 
reckoned  from  the  ‘‘going  forth  of  the  command  to  restore 
and  build  Jerusalem”  (Daniel  ix.  25).  There  is  no  possi- 
bility of  mistaking  this  starting-point.  We  read  in  Ezra 
vii.  8 that  this  command  was  issued  by  Artaxerxes  in  the  fifth 
month  of  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign,  or  453  b.  c.  The 
termination  of  the  period  is  “ the  confirmation  of  the  cove- 
nant,” the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  by 
the  opening  of  the  gospel  door  to  the  Gentile  world,  37  a.  d. 
453  B.  c.  and  37  a.  d.  make  the  490  years. 

This  period  of  “seventy  prophetic  weeks  ” is  divided 
into  three  unequal  parts, — “ seven  weeks,”  “threescore  and 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


215 


two  weeks,”  and  “ one  week.”  It  will  be  interesting  to  con- 
sider these  more  minutely. 

The  “ seven  weeks,”  or  49  years,  commence  with  the 
issuing  of  the  command  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem,  and 
end  with  the  completion  of  the  work  under  N'ehemiah.  IN’ow, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  the  Jews  that  the  temple  was  46 
years  in  building  (John  ii.  20),  and  we  learn  from  jtTehemi- 
ah  that  the  streets  were  built  again,  and  the  wall  of  the  city 
was  completed  434  b.  c.  Here  we  have  the  exact  49  years. 

The  “seven  weeks”  and  “threescore  and  two  weeks” 
which  together  make  sixty-nine  prophetic  weeks,  or  483 
years,  commence  with  the  command  to  restore  and  build 
Jerusalem,  and  end  with  the  manifestation  to  Israel  of  the 
Messiah  the  Prince.  This  event  occured  30  a.  d.,  when 
Christ  was  baptized  by  John  at  Jordan  (John  i.  20-24).  453 
B.  c.  and  30  a.  d.  make  the  483  years. 

The  “ one  week,”  or  seven  years,  from  the  manifesta- 
tion of  Christ  to  the  complete  confirmation  of  the  covenant, 
is  an  integral  part  of  the  seventy  weeks,  and  ends  with  the 
admission  of  Cornelius,  the  first  Gentile  convert,  into  the 
Christian  Church,  37  a.  d.  In  the  midst  of  the  week^  or 
three  and  a half  years  from  the  time  of  his  baptism  by  John, 
the  Messiah  was  cut  off. 

(4).  The  Messiah  was  to  send  a messenger,  or  harbinger 
before  his  face  to  prepare  his  way. 

“ Behold,  I will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  pre- 
pare the  way  before  me  : and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall 
suddenl}^  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  cov- 


2i6 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


enant,  whom  ye  delight  in  : behold,  he  shall  come,  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts  ” (Malachi  iii.  1), 

“ The  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,  Pre- 
pare ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  straight  in  the  desert  a 
highway  for  our  God  ” (Isaiah  xl.  3). 

The  messenger  appeared  in  the  person  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist. He  began  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  “ The 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.”  The  attention  of  the  people 
was  arrested.  They  all  wondered  of  John  whether  he  was 
the  Christ,  and  they  sent  unto  John  saying,  “ Who  art  thou? 
that  we  may  give  an  answer  to  them  that  sent  us.  What 
sayest  thou  of  thyself?”  And  he  answered,  I am  the  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness.  Make  straight  the  way  of 
Lord  as  said  the  prophet  Elias  ” (John  i.  23). 

The  Jews  were  earnest  and  diligent  students  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophecies,  and  with  these  specific  marks  which 
indicated  the  period  of  the  Redeemer’s  advent,  there  is  a nat- 
uralness in  the  “ universal  expectation  ” which  was  enter- 
tained by  the  Jews  that  He  was  about  to  be  “revealed  unto 
Israel.” 

4.  The  prophets  furnished  the  portraiture  of  peculiar 
characteristics  by  which  the  Messiah  could  be  easily  recog- 
nized as  the  Sent  of  God.  A noteworthy  one  is  given  by 
Isaiah  in  ch.  liii.  2,  3,  7,  8,  9. 

“ For  he  shall  grow  up  before  him  as  a tender  plant,  and 
as  a root  out  of  a dry  ground  : he  hath  no  form  nor  comeli- 
ness ; and  when  we  shall  see  him,  there  is  no  beauty  that 
we  should  desire  him. 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


217 


‘‘  He  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men  ; a man  of  sorrows 
and  acquainted  with  grief  : and  we  hid  as  it  were  our  faces 
from  him  ; he  was  despised,  and  we  esteemed  him  not.” 

“ He  was  oppressed,  and  he  was  afflicted,  }^et  he  opened 
not  his  mouth  : he  is  brought  as  a lamb  to  the  slaughter, 
and  as  a sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  openeth 
not  his  mouth. 

“ He  was  taken  from  prison  and  from  judgment  : and 
who  shall  declare  his  generation  ? for  he  was  cut  off*  out  of 
the  land  of  the  living  : for  the  transgression  of  my  people 
was  he  stricken. 

“ And  he  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the 
rich  in  his  death* ; because  he  had  done  no  violence,  neitlier 
was  any  deceit  in  his  mouth.” 

This  reads  like  a chapter  in  the  personal  history  of 
Christ  which  was  written  after  his  death.  Whereas  it  was 
written  more  tha4i  five  hundred  years  before  he  was  born. 

Now,  what  is  the  impression  which  this  Miracle  of 
Knowledge  ought  naturally  to  make  on  an  honest  mind? 
The  answer  is  obvious.  If  the  record  is  true,  the  Redeemer 
must  be  Divine, 


LECTURE  XI. 


What  think  ye  of  Christ  f— Matthew  xxii.  42. 

In  the  last  lecture  we  endeavored  to  show  that  the  Old 
Testament  contains  x^i'edictions  of  the  coming  of  a distin- 
guished personage  who  is  designated  the  Messiah,  and  that 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whose  life  is  recorded  in 
the  Gospels,  these  predictions  were  circumstantially  ful- 
lilled.  These  prophecies  with  their  fulfillment  are  Miracles 
of  Knowledge. 

We  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  person  and  character 
of  Christ,  and  ask  the  question,  Can  we  recognize  in  Him  a 
supernatural  element  ? The  question  of  to-day  has  been 
well  put  for  us  by  Jean  Paul  Kichter  : “Who  and  what 
was  that  great  Prophet  who  trod  the  fields  of  Palestine  nine- 
teen centuries  ago,  and  who  has  ever  since  been  woi-shipped 
as  a God  by  the  foremost  nations  of  the  world  ? ” Have 
the  foremost  nations  of  the  world  been  right  in  esteeming 
and  worshipping  Him  as  God,  or  have  they  been  mistaken, 
imposed  upon,  and  self-deceived? 

The  answer  to  this  question  determines  the  fate  of  Ciiris- 
tianity,  and  establishes  or  oveiTlirows  its  authority  in  our 
minds.  It  decides  for  us  the  question  whether  Christianity 
shall  henceforth  be  regarded,  in  its  origin  and  nature,  as  in- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


219 


triiisically  different  from  Buddhism,  Bramiiiism,  Parseism, 
and  Mohammedanism,  or  whether  it  shall  be  placed  on  the 
sjime  footing  with  these  religions  of  the  world.  It  settles, 
at  once  and  forever,  whether  the  teachings  of  Christ  have 
any  more  authority  than  the  teachings  of  Brahma,  Zoro- 
aster, Confucius,  and  Mohammed. 

The  battle  of  the  Evidences  must  therefore  be  fought 
out  on  this  field  and  around  this  one  central  point,  the  Per- 
son of  Christ.  Setting  aside  all  collateral  questions,  and  all 
mere  side  issues,  the  opponents  of  Christianity  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  friends  of  Christianity  on  the  other,  are  con- 
centrating all  their  forces  around  this  citadel  of  strength, 
the  possession  of  which  must  determine  forevei*  with  whom 
the  victory  lies.  Of  this  last  grand  disposition  of  contending 
forces  we  have  a significant  intimation  in  the  fact  that  now 
all  the  attacks  upon  Christianity,  and  all  the  defences  of 
Christianity,  are  cast  into  one  form,  “the  Life  of  Christ.” 
The  literature  of  this  subject  has  already  become  volumi- 
nous. We  have  “Lives  of  Christ”  from  the  skeptical  stand- 
point by  Strauss  and  Eenan  ; and  from  the  stand-point  of 
faith  by  Neander,  Lange,  Pressense,  Ellicott,  and  others. 

The  question  at  issue  between  the  friends  and  opponents 
of  Chistianity  may  therefore  be  clearly  defined,  and  the 
lines  may  be  sharply  drawn.  Either  the  person  and  charac- 
ter of  Christ  were  entirely  within  the  sphere  of  nature,  like 
every  other  human  life,  and  may  be  accounted  for  upon 
purely  natural  principles,  or  they  were  something  above  na- 
ture, that  is,  supernatural  and  miraculous.  These  are  the 


220 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


only  two  propositions  which  can  be  affirmed  in  relation  to 
the  person  of  Christ  : either  He  was  a man  amongst  men,  in 
whose  character  and  teaching  there  was  nothing  but  what 
may  be  easily  accounted  for,  and  fully  explained  by  natural 
principles  and  laws ; or  He  was  a superhuman  personage  com- 
ing to  us  from  the  invisible  world,  to  be  the  medium  of  inter- 
course between  G-od  and  man,  and  instituting  a Divine  econ- 
omy for  the  moral  elevation  of  the  human  race.  The  grand 
question  to  be  decided  is.  Was  there  anything  in  the  person 
or  the  character,  the  acts  or  the  teaching,  of  Christ,  of  which 
history  can  fully  certify  us,  which  clearly  distinguishes  Him 
from  the  rest  of  humanity  as  a supernatural  personage,  and 
proves  Him  to  be  Divine? 

This  is  the  issue  which  Christ  presented  to  the  skeptical 
Jews,  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? whose  son  is  He?  ” is  He 
the  son  of  man  or  the  Son  of  God  ? is  He  merely  human, 
or  is  He  indeed  Divine  ? 

They  answered  him,  “The  son  of  David  ! ” All  they 
recognized  in  Him  was  the  merely  human,  and  therefore 
His  mission  and  teaching  were  in  no  sense  supernatural. 
And  now  mark  the  dilemma  in  which  they  are  involved. 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  David  in  or  by  the  spirit  (that  is,  un- 
der the  influence  of  a prophetic  afflatus  which  ye  admit  to 
be  Divine)  calls  him  Lord.  N'ow  if  David  (in  the  110th 
Psalm)  call  him  Lord,  how  can  He  be  his  son  ? If  David 
recognizes  Him  as  a superhuman  personage,  how  can  He  be 
a mere  man  ? 

This  is  the  line  of  argument  I propose  to  pursue  in  this 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


221 


discourse.  I purpose  to  keep  this  question  contiiiuall}"  before 
your  attention,  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? I shall  ask  you 
calmly  to  consider  this  question  in  the  light  of  history,  and 
of  the  past  and  present  religious  phenomena  of  the  world, 
and  I shall  urge  you  to  pronounce  a deliberate  verdict  in 
view  of  all  the  facts,  and  of  the  logical  consequences  in- 
volved in  the  facts. 

Christianity  exists  to-day  ; and  as  a matter  of  fact  it  has 
existed  in  the  world  for,  at  least,  eighteen  centuries.  It  is 
interwoven  into  the  very  texture  of  human  history,  and  in- 
corporated into  the  framewoi*k  of  modern  society.  It  has 
exerted  a mighty  influence  on  the  entire  current  of  philo- 
sophic thought  for  sixteen  centuries  ; it  has  revolutionized 
the  opinions,  formed  the  literature,  and  modified  and  spirit- 
ualized the  fine  arts,  amongst  the  foremost  nations  of  the 
world.  By  its  agency  kingdoms  have  been  raised  to  great- 
ness, and  empires  have  been  overthrown,  and  it  has  formed 
the  most  powerful  element  in  all  the  changes  which  have 
marked  the  history  of  civilization.  And  to-day  it  controls 
the  destinies  of  the  civilized  world,  and  wields  an  empire 
embracing  one-third  of  the  entire  population  of  the  globe. 
As  Jean  Paul  Frederick  Bichter  has  felicitously  and  truth- 
fully said,  “Jesus  of  Xazareth,  with  his  pierced  hands,  has 
raised  empires  from  their  foundations,  turned  the  stream  of 
history  from  its  ancient  channels,  and  still  contines  to  rule  and 
guide  the  ages.”  While  empires  have  been  overthrown,  and 
nations  have  been  blotted  out,  and  systems  of  philosophy 
have  been  exploded,  and  human  economies  have  perished, 


222 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Cliristiauity  has  maintained  an  undiminished  vigor  and  a 
perennial  youth.  Resisted  and  opposed  by  kings  and  po- 
tentates with  fire  and  sword  ; its  confessors  immured  in 
dungeons,  tortuied  on  the  rack,  and  burned  at  the  stake;  and 
its  martyrs  numbered  b}^  millions,  it  has,  in  spite  of  all  op- 
position, conquei’ed  for  itself  an  immense  and  ever  increas- 
ing territory  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  our  race.  It  has  been 
assailed  by  Infidelity  with  scorn  and  ridicule  and  plausible 
sophistries,  and  sometimes  with  subtle  and  powerful  argu- 
ments, but  in  those  very  times  it  has  gathered  up  new 
strength,  and  conceived  and  executed  its  grandest  enterpris- 
es for  the  conversion  of  the  world.  When  skeptics  have 
pronounced  it  effete  and  dead,  and  have  made  arrangements 
for  its  respectable  interment,  it  has  renewed  its  youth,  and 
to-day  it  exhibits  more  vitality,  freshness,  and  power  than 
it  ever  displaj^ed  before. 

Christianity,  therefore,  is  the  grand  phenomenon  which 
the  student  of  history  cannot  afford  to  disregard,  and  haugh- 
tily ignore.  Every  phenomenon  must  have  its  origin,  its 
cause,  its  reason,  and  its  law.  And  the  great  facts  of  relig- 
ious history,  the  phenomena  of  the  Christian  world,  demand 
to  be  studied,  accounted  for,  and  explained,  just  as  much  as 
the  phenomena  of  the  material,  and  the  events  of  the  moral 
world. 

I am  deepl}^  solicitous  to  engage  your  logical  powers  in 
the  effort  to  solve  this  grand  problem  of  history.  I urge 
you,  fearlessly,  earnestly,  and  critically  to  endeavor  to  ac- 
count to  yourselves  for  the  present  existence  and  amazing 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


223 


power  of  Christianity  in  the  world.  I ask  you  to  attempt  an 
explanation  of  all  the  facts  of  Christianity,  to  deduce  its  or- 
igin, to  account  for  its  progress,  and,  if  you  think  it  possible, 
to  reduce  it  to  the  same  laws  as  govern  the  development  of  all 
the  other  facts  of  history.  And  especially  do  I urge  you  to 
attempt  to  account  for  its  existence  in  the  world  on  pui-ely 
natural  principles,  and  without  having  recourse  to  supernat- 
ural principles  and  powers.  The  only  conditions  I would 
impose  upon  you  are  that  your  explanation  shall  be  ade- 
quate, and  the  reasons  you  assign  for  its  existence  shall  be 
rationally  and  logically  sufficient. 

For  the  better  management  of  the  discussion  I will  en- 
deavor to  proceed  upon  the  assumption  that  in  relation  to 
Christianity  your  minds  maintain  a skeptical  attitude.  To 
all  of  you  the  question,  I know,  cannot  be  devoid  of  inter- 
est. Christianity  professes  to  deal  with  matters  that  affect 
our  dearest  and  most  precious  intei'ests,  our  well-being  on 
earth,  and  our  happiness  beyond  the  grave.  Still,  in  regard 
to  the  Divine  origin  of  Christianity,  I suppose  you  to  stand 
in  doubt.  You  are  not  sure  that  it  was  originated  by  God  ; 
you  suspect  it  may  have  been  originated  by  dishonest  and 
designing  men  ; or  it  may  have  been  a natural  development 
of  the  childhood  conceptions  of  our  race,  born  of  legends 
and  myths.  And  I commence  tiie  inquiry  by  seeking  to  as- 
certain where  there  are  any  points  upon  wliich  we  are  all 
agreed.  Is  there  any  ground  upon  which  we  can  stand,  and 
from  which  we  can  start  on  our  journey? 

Are  we  not  all  agreed  in  the  common  opinion,  enter* 


224 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


tainecl  alike  by  Christians  and  Infidels,  that  Christianity  in 
some  way  had  its  origin  in  and  with  Christ?  Christianity, 
somehow,  centres  in  the  person  of  Christ.  Whether  we 
think  of  Christ  as  the  real  historic  personage  presented  to  us 
in  the  writings  of  the  four  Evangelists,  or  whether  we  re- 
gard Him  as  “the obscure  man  of  Nazareth  ” around  whom 
the  lively  fancy  of  succeeding  ages  has  thrown  a vesture  of 
mythological  conceptions,  Christ  is  in  some  sense,  for  us  all, 
the  grand  central  figure  of  this  historic  drama.  And  there- 
fore all  discussions  concerning  the  Divine  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity must  commence  with  the  person  and  <diaracter  of 
Christ.  If  He  be  found  to  be  the  person  the  four  Evangel- 
ists ]-epresent  Him,  and  the  person  they  represent  Him  as 
claiming  to  be,  then  the  person  of  Christ  is  the  grand  cen- 
tral miracle  of  history,  and  the  strongest  evidence  of  the 
Divinity  of  the  Christian  religion. 

It  will  be  found,  as  we  proceed  with  our  discussion,  that 
all  the  various  theories  which  have  been  proposed  to  explain 
the  origin  of  Christianity,  are,  in  reality,  answers  to  the 
question,  What  think  ye  of  Christ? 

1.  There  is  one  class  which  meets  the  question  by  ig- 
noring the  whole  life-history  of  Christ  as  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  pronouncing  Christianity  to  be  an  impo- 
sition and  fraud  perpetrated  by  Christ  and  His  so  called 
Apostles. 

This  explanation  of  the  existence  of  Christianity  was 
first  suggested  by  the  heathen  assailants  of  Christianity, 
Celsus,  and  Julian  the  Apostate  ; then  insinuated  by  French 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


225 


deists  of  the  school  of  Voltaire,  and  reproduced  in  this  coun- 
try by  Thomas  Paine,  kut  never  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a 
scientific  argument. 

We  grant  you  that  this  is  the  most  convenient,  but  surely 
not  the  most  rational  or  honorable,  mode  of  disposing  of  so 
grave  and  important  a question.  If  you  are  resolved  not  to 
believe  an  individual  whatever  his  reputation  for  veracity, 
the  most  convenient  way  is  to  call  him  an  impostor  and  liar, 
and  turn  away.  But  no  individual  of  any  manliness,  and 
sense  of  decency,  and  reverence  for  truth,  can  pursue  such  a 
course.  The  hypothesis  of  imposture  is  so  revoiting  to  mor- 
al sense,  as  well  as  to  common  sense,  that  its  mere  statement 
is  its  own  condemnation.  It  has  never  been  seriously  car- 
ried out,  and  no  scholar  of  any  decency  and  self-respect  has 
the  hardihood  now  to  profess  it  openly.  “ A German  by  the 
name  of  Bruno  Bauer,  a theological  weather  cock,  vagabond, 
and  final  apostate,  has  endeavored  to  revive  this  exploded 
theory,  and  represents  the  Gospels  as  deliberate  fabrications. 
But  even  Strauss  ignores  him  as  unfit  for  decent  company.” 
It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  life-history  of  Christ  has  been 
accepted  as  true  by  the  profoundest  thinkers,  the  ablest  ju- 
rists, the  most  philosophic  historians,  in  Europe  and  Ameri- 
ca, and  it  is  an  act  of  no  small  presumption  in  men  of  very 
ordinary  attainments  to  pronounce  all  these  illustrious  men 
the  dupes  of  falsehood  and  deception.  Yet  this  was  the  pre- 
cise course  pursued  by  the  opponents  of  Christianity  until 
within  a few  years  past,  and  it  is  the  resort  of  vulgar  and 
ignorant  unbelievers  still.  This  form  of  Infidelity  is  simply 


226 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


an  insult  offered  to  common  sense,  and  a libel  on  the  dignity 
of  human  nature. 

This  theory  that  Christianity  originated  in  imposition 
and  fraud,  makes  a greater  demand  upon  an  unreason- 
ing faith,  and  requires  more  blind  credulity,  than  all  the 
mythological  stories  of  the  prehistoric  age,  or  tlie  puerile 
miracles  of  the  medieval  period.  How  in  the  name  of  com- 
mon sense  could  an  impostor,  that  is,  a conscious  deceiver, 
a selfish  and  depraved  man,  have  invented,  and  consistently 
maintained  from  beginning  to  end,  the  purest  and  noblest 
character  known  to  history  with  the  most  perfect  air  of  truth 
and  reality?  How  could  He  have  conceived  and  carried  out 
successfully,  in  the  face  of  the  strongest  prejudices  of  His 
people  and  age,  a plan  of  unparalleled  beneficence,  moral 
magnanimity,  and  heroic  self-sacrifice?  The  man  who 
accepts,  or  pretends  to  accept,  this  theory,  must,  to  be  consis- 
tent, also  believe  that  the  purest,  the  most  elevated,  the  most 
original,  and  the  most  influential  system  of  ethics  the  world 
has  ever  seen,  was  devised  and  published  by  one  of  the 
vilest  and  basest  of  men,  whose  object  was  simply  to  deceive 
his  fellow-men  ! He  must  believe  that  the  first  precepts 
enjoining  purity  of  heart,  sincerity  of  purpose,  rectitude  of 
intention,  singleness  of  eye,  were  inculcated  by  a conscious 
hypocrite.  He  must  believe  that  the  first  injunction  to  uni- 
versal love,  to  unbounded  charity,  broke  forth  from  the  lips 
of  a narrow  bigot.  He  must  believe  that  this  impostor 
exemplified  the  ideal  perfection  of  this  beautiful  system  of 
morals  in  the  most  unique,  original,  and  faultless  life, — a 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


227 


life  which  has  extorted  the  admiration  even  of  bad  men, 
and  constrained  the  loving  homage  of  the  purest  and  best 
men  in  every  age.  Now,  if  you  can  accept  all  these  para- 
doxes, and  many  more  indeed,  in  which  j^ouare  involved  on 
the  hypothesis  we  are  considering,  then,  with  Prof.  Rogers, 
T must  exclaim,  “ O Infidel,  great  is  thy  faith!  ” 

Between  ourselves,  then,  who  believe  in  the  Divine  and 
heavenly  origin  of  Christianity,  and  those  who  pronounce 
it  a mere  imposition  and  fraud  perpetrated  by  designing 
men,  how  does  the  case  stand  as  a matter  of  historic  fact? 
Have  we  the  same  historic  certainty  in  regard  to  the  life  of 
Christ,  that  we  have  in  relation  to  any  other  facts  of  history  ? 
Are  we  as  certain  that  Christ  was  born  in  Bethlehem,  under 
the  reign  of  Augustus  Csesar;  that  He  spent  His  private  life 
in  Galilee,  and  His  public  life  in  Jerusalem ; that  He  per- 
formed the  works  which  are  recorded  of  Him,  and  uttered 
the  sayings  which  are  ascribed  to  Him  in  the  four  gospels, 
as  we  are  that  Xenophon  took  a prominent  part  in  conduct- 
ing the  famous  retreat  of  the  Greeks  from  the  plains  of 
Mesopotamia ; or  that  Napoleon  was  born  in  Corsica,  led  his 
armies  on  the  fatal  march  to  Moscow,  was  defeated  at 
Waterloo,  and  died  at  St.  Helena?  Can  history  when  fairly 
and  honestly  appealed  to,  cany  us  over  the  intervening 
eighteen  centuries,  set  us,  as  it  were,  in  the  midst  of  the 
hearers  and  actual  observers  of  Christ,  and  enable  us  to 
pronounce  a decided  judgment  upon  tlie  integrity  and  purity 
of  His  character,  and  the  validity  of  His  claims  to  a super- 
natural mission  ? 


228 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


The  discussion  of  the  following  propositions  will  fur- 
nish the  answer  to  this  question  : 

1.  We  have  the  testimony  of  four  distinct  and  inde- 
jDendent  witnesses,  biographers  of  the  founder  of  Christian- 
ity, three  of  whom  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  acts  and  per- 
sonal hearers  of  the  sayings  of  Christ,  and  the  fourth 
(Luke)  was  the  daily  companion  and  associate  of  those  who 
were  ej^e-witnesses. 

2.  These  original  witnesses  of  the  acts  and  sayings  of 
the  founder  of  Christianity,  attested  the  genuineness  and 
truthfulness  of  their  testimony  by  passing  their  lives  in 
poverty,  suffering,  and  reproach,  as  a consequence  of  their 
sincere  adherence  to  the  facts;  and  finally  sealed  their  testi- 
mony with  their  blood. 

We  have  a life  of  Christ  by  Matthew,  an  officer  of  the 
customs,  who  became  a disciple  of  Christ,  and  who  wrote 
his  gospel  at  Jerusalem ; a gospel  by  Mark,  which  was  writ- 
ten in  Rome;  a third  by  Luke,  a native  of  Antioch,  a phy- 
sician who  accompanied  Paul  on  his  travels;  and  another  by 
John,  written  at  Ephesus.  Of  each  and  every  one  of  these 
witnesses  we  remark  in  general,  they  are  deserving  of  the 

n 

fullest  confidence,  because  they  had  the  very  best  oppor- 
tunity of  obtaining  information,  they  were  eye-witnesses,  or 
the  associates  of  eye-witnesses ; because  of  the  moral  purity 
of  their  character;  because  of  their  entire  disinterestedness; 
and  because  of  the  sufferings  they  endured  on  account  of 
this  testimony  they  bore  to  the  world. 

The  force  of  this  evidence  is  somewhat  abated  in  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


229 


minds  of  the  less  thoughtful  by  the  circumstance  that  now 
we  have  these  four  histories  bound  in  one  volume,  and 
the  impression  is  they  are  all  the  work  of  one  author.  Let 
it  be  distinctly  remembered  that  in  these  four  gospels  we 
have  four  separate  and  independent  narratives  detailing 
what  each  writer  saw  and  heard  for  himself;  that  each  has 
his  own  peculiarities  of  style  and  manner,  and  sustains  the 
character  of  an  independent  historian;  that  each  account 
was  published  separately,  published  at  different  intervals, 
and  under  widely  different  circumstances.  It  is  evident  in 
every  sentence,  as  Paine  admits,  that  there  is  no  collusion 
between  them,  and  no  preconcerted  authorship ; and,  finally, 
each  one  of  these  writers  passed  his  life  in  dangers  and  suf- 
ferings incurred  because  of  having  published  this  testimony, 
and  some  of  them  sealed  it  with  their  blood. 

It  has  been  urged  that  these  four  historians  were  the 
personal  friends  of  Christ,  and  on  that  account  disqualified 
to  write  a truthful  and  impartial  narrative.  But  who  ever 
heard  such  a principle  of  historic  criticism  applied  to  any 
other  composition?  Was  Plato  disqualified  for  giving  a 
trustworthy  account  of  the  trial  of  Socrates,  and  reporting 
that  remarkable  speech  which  he  uttered  in  prison  before 
drinking  the  poisoned  cup,  because  he  was  the  admiring, 
loving  friend  and  disciple  of  the  great  philosopher?  By  no 
means!  The  narrative  for  that  very  reason  becomes  all  the 
more  trustworthy  and  interesting.  Was  Boswell  disqualified 
for  writing  the  biography  of  Dr.  Johnson  because  he  was 
his  companion,  admirer,  and  friend?  Was  Dr.  Hanna  unlit 


230 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


to  write  the  life  of  Chalmers  because  he  was  his  son-iii-law? 
It  must  be  a peculiar  style  of  hypercriticism  which  could 
say,  Yes!  And  surely  John,  the  loving  and  beloved  disci- 
ple, was  no  less  disqualified  for  writing  a faithful  account 
of  his  Master’s  words  because  he  always  sat  next  to  Him  at 
meat,  and  reclined  on  His  bosom,  and  hearkened  with  ador- 
ing wonder  to  His  words  of  love. 

What  conceivable  motive  could  these  simple-minded, 
unambitious  fishermen  have  for  publishing  a false  and  un- 
reliable account  of  the  acts  and  sayings  of  their  great 
Teacher?  It  could  not  be  the  love  of  power,  because  he 
who  desired  to  be  greatest  among  them  was  commanded  to 
become  the  servant  of  the  rest.  It  could  not  be  the  love  of 
wealth,  because  they  were  taught  to  provide  neither  purse 
nor  scrip,  to  lay  up  no  treasure  on  the  earth,  and  make  no 
provision  for  the  morrow.  It  could  not  be  the  love  of  fame 5 
because  they  were  taught  they  would  be  persecuted,  for- 
saken, despised,  for  Christ’s  sake.  The}^  could  have  but  one 
motive, — the  love  of  truth. 

Having  put  in  these  documents,  the  records  of  the  facts 
as  known  and  believed  amongst  the  early  Christians,  we 
next  present  collateral  evidence  that  Christianity  did  origin- 
ate with  Christ,  and  that  the  original  witnesses  of  His  acts 
and  sayings  did  pass  their  lives  in  poverty  and  reproach  and 
suffering  in  consequence  of  bearing  their  testimony. 

We  learn  from  the  writings  of  Tacitus,  the  Eoman  his- 
torian, who  was  born  in  the  reign  of  J^ero,  that  within 
thirty-four  years  after  the  death  of  Christ  there  was  a “vast 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


231 


multitude  of  Christians”  in  the  city  of  Rome.  He  further 
adds  : The  author  of  that  name  (Christian)  was  Christ,  who 
in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  was  put  to  death  as  a criminal  under 
Pontius  Pilate.  Those  in  the  city  of  Rome  who  were  found 
to  be  favorers  of  that  sect  were  put  to  death.  These  execu- 
tions wei*e  so  contrived  as  to  expose  them  to  derision  and 
contempt.  Some  were  covered  over  with  skins  of  wild 
beasts,  that  they  might  be  torn  to  pieces  by  dogs;  others 
were  covered  with  combustible  materials,  and  set  on  tire  in 
the  night  and  burned  to  death.  (“  Annals,”  bk.  xx.  ch.  44.) 

We  are  not  unmindful  of  the  devices  of  Infidelity  to 
destroy,  if  possible,  the  force  and  value  of  this  testimony 
of  the  heathen  historian  by  asserting  that  these  words  have 
been  interpolated  into  the  writings  of  Tacitus  by  some 
Christian  after  his  times,  who  committed  a pious  fraud  to 
maintain  Christianity.  This  is  but  one  of  the  many  exam- 
ples of  the  reckless  and  unscrupulous  assertions  of  Infidel 
writers,  which  has  not  the  least  shadow  of  authority  or  even 
probability.  But  we  have  a prompt  and  overwhelming 
refutation  in  the  words  of  an  acknowledged  skeptic,  who 
has  too  much  integrity  as  an  histoilan  to  give  the  least 
countenance  to  such  slander.  We  refer  of  course  to  the 
historian  Gibbon.  In  his  ‘‘Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire,”  vol.  ii.  pp.  407,  408,  he  remarks  : “ The  most 
skeptical  criticism  is  compelled  to  admit  the  truth  of  this 
important  fact,  and  the  integrity  of  this  passage  of  Tacitus. 
The  former  [the  truth  of  this  j)assage]  is  confirmed  by  the 
dili  gent  and  accurate  Suetonius,  who  also  mentions  the  pun 


232 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


ishments  which  were  inflicted  upon  the  Christians.  The 
latter  [the  integrity  of  the  passage]  may  he  proved  by  the 
consent  of  the  most  ancient  MSS.,  by  the  inimitable  char- 
acter of  Tacitus,  by  the  purport  of  his  narrative,  and  by  his 
reputation,  which  guarded  the  text  from  the  interpolations 
of  pious  fraud.” 

This  testimony  of  Tacitus  as  to  the  origin  of  Christian- 
ity, and  the  sufferings  of  the  early  Christians,  is  also  con- 
flrmed  by  his  contemporaiy  Suetonius,  by  Juvenal,  a Avriter 
of  the  same  age.  Martial,  and  Pliny  the  Younger. 

In  addition  to,  and  in  confirmation  of,  the  testimony  of 
sacred  and  profane  historians  as  to  the  origination  of  Chris- 
tianity by  Christ,  and  as  to  the  vast  number  of  its  confessors 
and  martyrs  in  the  first  century,  we  direct  your  attention  to 
the  monumental  remains  of  the  early  Christians  ivhich  have 
been  lately  discovered  in  the  catacombs  of  Pome.  These 
catacombs  were  immense  galleries  which  the  early  Roman 
Christians  dug  deep  beloAV  the  earth’s  surface,  where  they 
retired  to  escape  persecution,  and  where,  during  a great  por- 
tion of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  they  lived  and  died. 
These  catacombs  are  calculated  to  extend  more  than  900 
miles  underground  as  streets,  and  to  contain  almost  7,000,000 
graves.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Tacitus  tells  us  there 
was  a “ A^ast  multitude  of  Christians”  in  Rome  in  his  day, 
and  by  the  the  time  of  the  emperor  Valerian  it  is  estimated 
they  constituted  one-half  the  population  of  the  cit}".  We 
descend  into  these  catacombs  of  Rome,  and,  as  it  Avere,  see 
the  struggling,  persecuted  community  of  Christians  “living 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


233 


ill  dens  and  caves  of  the  earth,”  where  numbers,  after  suf- 
fering martyrdom  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  lie  reposing  until 
His  second  coming  ; and  over  their  remains  we  read  such 
inscriptions  as  this  : ‘‘In  the  time  of  the  emperor  Adrian, 
the  young  man  Marius,  a general  in  the  army,  sacriliced  his 
life  for  Christ’s  sake,  rests  at  last  in  peace,  and  was  buried 
with  merited  tears  and  respect.”  Finallj^  the  appellation 
of  “Martyr”  is  inscribed  on  the  greater  number  of  the 
tombs.  And,  now,  is  it  rational  to  suppose  that  these  first 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  were  designing  hypocrites  and 
wicked  deceivers?  What  imaginable  motives  could  induce 
them  to  engage  in  such  a wicked  scheme  when  they  knew 
they  would  be  persecuted  even  to  death  ? 

The  man  who  can  accept  such  a theory  must  be  cred- 
ulous indeed.  He  must  believe  that  without  arms,  without 
power,  without  wealth,  or  learning,  these  men  were  victori- 
ous over  old  prejudices,  and  ancient  beliefs,  and  long  cher- 
ished usages,  and  venerable  forms  of  religion,  and  in  three 
centuries  took  possession  of  the  ancient  world.  He  must 
believe  that  the  actors  in  this  stupendous  fraud,  acted  not 
onl}^  without  iiny  assignable  motive,  but  against  all  assign- 
able motives;  that  they  persisted  in  an  unprofitable  falsehood 
in  defiance  of  prisons  and  fiames.  And,  lastly,  that  amid 
all  their  depravity  and  conscious  wickedness  they  had  the 
elfrontery  to  preach  the  purest  and  most  sublime  morality 
the  world  ever  listened  to,  and,  stranger  still,  the  inconsist- 
ency to  practice  it.  If  you  can  do  all  this,  we  cannot  help 
exclaiming  in  amazement,  “O  Infidel,  great  is  thy  faith!” 


234 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


Theodore  Parker  has  truly  said,  “ It  would  have  taken 
a Jesus  to  forge  a Jesus,”  and  we  will  add,  a Jesus  would 
have  been  incapable  of  such  a forgery.  A bad  man  was 
morally  incapable  of  conceiving  such  a noble  and  perfect 
ideal;  a good  man  could  not  possibly  have  perpetrated  such 
a fraud. 

Let  us  grant,  for  argument’s  sake,  that,  in  the  skeptical 
sense  of  the  word  miracle,  a miracle  is  an  impossibility. 
Let  us  even  grant  that  miracles  alone  could  not  prove  a rev- 
elation to  be  true.  Let  us  hold  even  the  Divine  inspiration 
in  abeyance;  and  let  us  take  our  stand  upon  the  platform 
occupied  by  intelligent  doubters  of  the  present  age,  and  see 
if  the  admissions  and  concessions  they  make,  do  not  involve 
the  conclusion  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  we  have  an  ele- 
ment that  rises  above  the  plane  of  nature, — a supernatural 
element. 

Let  us  first  distinctly  determine  their  exact  position  in 
regard  to  the  life-history  of  Christ.  And,  first,  we  begin 
with  Strauss  of  Germany.  He  is  by  far  the  ablest  modern 
adversaiy  of  Christianity.  He  has  subjected  the  N'ew  Testa- 
ment to  the  severest  criticism;  and  yet  he  admits  that  Jesus 
of  I^azareth  lived  upon  the  earth,  and  that  “his  life  and 
character  were  substantially  what  is  represented  hy  the 
evangelists,”  excepting,  of  course,  the  mii*aculous  element. 
I quote  from  Rousseau  : “ Shall  we  suppose  the  evangelical 
history  to  be  a mere  fiction  ? Indeed,  my  friends,  it  bears 
iiot  the  marks  of  fiction.  On  the  contrary,  the  history  of 
Socrates,  which  no  one  presumes  to  doubt,  is  not  so  well 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


235 


attested  as  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  Such  a supposition,  in  fact, 
only  shifts  the  difficulty  without  removing  it : it  is  more  in- 
conceivable that  a number  of  persons  should  agree  to  write 
such  a history,  than  that  one  should  furnish  the  subject  of 
it.  The  Jewish  authors  were  incapable  of  the  diction,  and 
strangers  to  the  morality,  contained  in  the  Gospel.  The 
marks  of  its  truth  are  so  striking  and  so  inimitable,  that  the 
inventor  would  be  a more  astonishing  character  than  the 
hero.”  (*‘ Emile,”  vol.  ii.  p.  318.) 

My  next  testimon^^  is  from  Gerrit  Smith.  In  an  article 
on  “ Reason  and  Religion,”  in  the  IN'ew  York  Tribune^  we 
read  : 

“ I am  not  in  these  remarks  denying  aught  of  the  value 
of  tlie  Bible.  Incomparable  is  that  volume,  if  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  it  contains  the  life  of  Christ.  But  it 
may  be  asked,  since  I am  not  confident  that  the  Bible  is  all 
true,  how  am  I confident  that  it  contains  the  true  life  of 
Christ?  My  answer  is,  that  such  a life  could  not  be  fabri- 
cated. It  must  have  been  substantially  what  the  Bible  rep- 
resents it  to  be.  Such  a reality  transcends  all  the  possibili- 
ties of  fiction.  It  cannot  be  the  coinage  of  the  imagina- 
tion. It  cannot  be  a picture  without  an  original.  Besides, 
had  it  been  within  the  compass  of  a good  man’s  ability  to 
invent  such  a life,  his  goodness  would  prevent  him  from 
palming  it  off  upon  the  world  as  a reality.  I scarce  need 
add  that  an  approach  to  such  a life  lies  wholly  without  the 
reach  of  a bad  man’s  conceptions,  and  can  find  no  place  in 
his  possible  inventions.” 


236 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


I olfer  another  extract  from  Theodore  Parker’s  “Dis- 
courses on  Religion.”  Speaking  of  Christ,  he  says  : 

“ He  united  in  himself  the  suhlimest  precepts  and  the 
divinest  practices.  He  rose  above  the  prejudices  of  his  age, 
nation,  and  sect.  He  poured  out  a doctrine  beautiful  as  the 
light,  sublime  as  heaven,  true  as  God.  Eighteen  centuries 
have  passed  away  since  the  sun  of  humanity  rose  so  high  in 
Jesus,  yet  what  man,  what  sect,  has  matured  his  thought, 
comprehended  his  method,  and  so  fully  applied  his  life? ” 
From  Greig’s  “Creed  of  Christendom”  I select  the 
following  : 

“ It  is  difficult,  without  exhausting  superlatives,  to  do 
justice  to  our  intense  love,  reverence,  and  admiration  for 
the  human  character  of  Jesus.  We  regard  him,  not  as  the 
perfection  of  intellectual  and  philosophic  mind,  but  as  the 
perfection  of  spiritual  character,  as  surpassing  all  men  of 
all  times  in  the  closeness  and  depth  of  his  communion  with 
the  Father.  In  reading  his  sayings  we  feel  we  are  holding 
converse  with  the  purest,  noblest,  wisest  being  that  ever 
clothed  thought  in  the  poor  language  of  our  humanity. 
In  studying  his  life  we  feel  that  we  are  following  the  foot- 
steps of  the  highest  ideal  yet  presented  to  us  on  earth.” 

De  Witte  of  Germany  thus  speaks  in  regard  to  Christ: 
“The  man  who  comes  without  preconceived  opinions 
to  the  life  of  Christ,  and  who  yields  himself  up  to  the  im- 
pression which  it  makes,  will  feel  no  manner  of  doubt  that 
he  is  the  most  exalted  character  and  the  purest  soul  that 
history  presents  to  us.  He  walked  over  the  earth  like  some 
nobler  being  who  scarce  touched  it  with  his  feet.” 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


237 


Kenan  concedes  that  in  the  four  gospels  we  have  “an 
authentic  life  of  Christ.”  The  gospel  by  Matthew  is  re- 
garded by  him  as  entitled  to  “ unlimited  confidence,” 
“doubt  is  scarcely  possible.”  Mr.  Kenan  has  also  visited 
Palestine  and  familiarized  himself  thoroughly  with  the 
actual  scenes  in  which  transpired  the  life  of  Christ,  and  he 
says,  “ The  special  commission  for  the  exploration  of  an- 
cient Phoenicia,  of  which  I was  the  director  in  1860-1,  led 
me  to  reside  on  the  frontiers  of  Galilee,  and  to  traverse  it 
frequently.  I have  traveled  through  the  evangelical  prov- 
inces in  every  direction.  Scarcely  any  locality  in  the  history 
of  Jesus  escaped  me.  The  striking  accord  of  the  text  and 
the  places,  the  wonderful  harmony  of  the  evangelical  idea 
and  the  landscape,  served  as  a revelation.  1 had  before  my 
eyes  a ‘ fifth  gospel,’  torn,  but  still  legible,  and  thenceforth 
through  the  narrative  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  instead  of  an 
abstract  being  which  one  would  have  said  never  existed,  I 
saw  a wonderful  human  form  live  and  move.” 

With  these  views  of  the  credibility  of  the  gospel  narra- 
tive, it  is  interesting  to  hear  Kenan’s  answer  to  the  question. 
What  think  of  Christ?: 

“ Christ  for  the  first  time  gave  utterance  to  the  idea 
upon  which  rests  the  edifice  of  the  everlasting  religion.  He 
founded  the  pure  worship — of  no  age,  of  no  clime— which 
shall  be  that  of  all  lofty  souls  to  the  end  of  time.”  “Ke- 
pose  now  in  thj^  glory,  noble  founder!  Thy  work  is  fin- 
ished; thy  diviiiity  is  established.  Fear  no  more  to  see  the 
edifice  of  thy  labors  fall  by  any  fault.  Henceforth,  beyond 


238 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


the  reach  of  frailty,  thou  shalt  witness  from  the  lieights  of 
divine  peace,  the  intinite  results  of  thine  acts.  Thou  hast 
become  the  corner-stone  of  humanity  so  entirely  that  to  tear 
thy  name  from  this  world  would  be  to  rend  it  to  its  founda- 
tion. Between  thee  and  God  there  will  be  no  longer  any 
distinction.  Complete  conqueror  of  death,  take  possession 
of  thy  kingdom  ; whither  shall  follow  thee  by  the  royal 
road  which  thou  hast  traced,  ages  of  worshipers.”  (“Vie 
de  Jd^us,”  pp.  1G8,  308.) 

Mark  what  is  conceded  to  us  by  these  various  writers: 

1.  It  is  admitted  that  the  life  and  character  of  Christ 
must  have  been  subsLantially  what  the  gospel  history  says 
it  was. 

2.  That  the  character  and  teachings  of  Christ  were 
transcendently  pure  and  true. 

3.  That  there  had  never  been  such  a human  life  before, 
and  no  man  has  since  attained  to  anything  so  pure  and 
exalted. 

Now,  we  ask  no  more  than  is  here  conceded,  and  upon 
these  admissions  we  argue  that  the  earthly  life  of  Christ, 
apart  even  from  his  miraculous  acts,  furnishes  an  extraor- 
dinary and  conclusive  proof  of  his  superhuman  character. 
Let  it  once  be  admitted  that  the  facts  of  His  life,  even  as  a 
man,  did  transpire,  that  His  character,  even  as  a man,  was 
what  the  New  Testament  represents  it,  and  upon  that  ad- 
mission we  erect  an  argument  for  his  Divinity.  Looking  at 
Him  just  as  He  is  presented  in  the  gospel  history,  we  cry 
ecce  Homo^ — behold  the  Man!  Look  at  the  outward  condi- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


239 


tions  of  His  eartlil}"  life,  consider  the  age,  the  coiintiy,  and 
the  circumstances  in  which  He  appeared,  the  darkness  and 
moral  degeneracy  which  existed,  and  within  those  circum- 
stances see  Him  develop  a sinless  life,  an  harmonious,  com- 
l)lete,  and  perfect  moral  character,  a comprehensive  and 
universal  benevolence,  and  an  originality  of  moral  and 
religious  teaching,  and  say,  was  He  onl}^  a man ! Sin  is  a 
universal  characteristic  of  humanit}^,  so  that  “there  is  no 
man  that  liveth  and  sinneth  not,”  but  Christ  was  absolutely 
sinless,  therefore  he  was  superhuman.  And  for  Christ  to 
live  upon  the  earth  without  sin  was  a greater  miracle  than 
for  Him  to  raise  Lazarus  fi'om  the  grave.  The  simple  his- 
tory of  the  Redeemer’s  life  and  character  is  potent  against 
all  the  encroachments  of  Infidelity.  In  the  presence  of 
those  glorious  scenes  with  which  the  evangelical  narrative 
abounds,  skepticism  and  impiety  slink  away  and  hide  them- 
selves in  darkness.  But  humanity  will  not  forget  them ; 
men  still  wonder  at  the  gracious  words  which  fell  from  His 
lips,  and  still  exclaim,  “Never  man  spake  like  this  man!” 
The  brightness  of  the  bilghtest  names  that  adorn  the  page 
of  history  pale  and  wane  in  presence  of  the  radiance  which 
shines  from  the  person  of  Christ.  The  scenes  at  the  tomb 
of  Lazarus,  at  the  gate  of  Nain,  in  the  happy  familj"  at 
Bethany,  in  the  upper  room  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane,  on  the  summit  of  Calvary,  and  at  the  Sepul- 
cher, the  sweet  remembrance  of  the  patience  with  which  He 
bore  wrong,  the  gentleness  with  which  He  rebuked  it,  and 
the  love  with  which  He  forgave  it,  the  thousand  acts  of 


240 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


condescension  by  which  He  earned  for  himself,  from  self- 
righteous  pi'ide  and  censorious  hypocrisy,  the  name  of  “the 
friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,” — these  and  a hundred 
things  more  which  crowd  those  concise  memorials  of  love 
and  sorrow  with  such  pathos  and  beauty,  will  continue  to 
attract  and  charm  the  soul  of  humanity,  and  on  these  the 
highest  genius  and  humblest  mediocrity  will  dwell  in  the 
ages  that  are  to  come,  and  men  shall  be  constrained  to  con- 
fess, “Thou  art  the  Son  of  God!”  (See  “Defense  of 
the  Eclipse  of  Faith,”  pp.  142-144.) 


LECTURE  XII. 


Rabbi f we  k?tow  that  thou  art  a teacher  come  from  God : for  no  man 
can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest^  except  God  be  with  7/m.— John 

III.  2. 

I REMARKED  ill  my  lasL  lecture  that  it  is  now  generally 
conceded  that  we  have  in  the  four  Gospels  an  authentic  life 
of  Christ.  Ernest  Kenan  may  be  regarded  as  giving  utter- 
ance to  the  last  word  which  embodies  the  concessions,  if 
not  the  settled  convictions,  of  the  modern  Positive  school ; 
and  he  grants  that  the  four  Evangelists  are  entitled  to  “un- 
limited confidence,”  and  doubt  as  to  their  sincerity  and 
honesty  is,  says  he,  “hardly  possible.”  The  facts  in  the 
case  were  very  much  as  they  have  presented  them,  or  at  any 
rate  there  is  a large  substratum  of  fact  underlying  the 
whole  gospel  narrative. 

The  real  question  at  issue  between  the  friends  and  the 
opponents  of  Christianity  is  thus  narrowed  down  to  a dis- 
tinct and  clearly  appreciable  issue.  It  now  becomes  a ques- 
tion of  interpretation.  How  are  the  facts  to  be  legitimately 
accounted  for,  and  adequately  explained?  The  universally 
accepted  belief  of  Christendom  that  Christ  was  a super- 
natural personage,  is  regarded  by  us  as  the  only  legitimate 

and  adequate  explanation.  Other  hypotheses  have  been 
Q 


242 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


proposed  which  disregard  and  reject  the  supernatural  ele- 
ment, and  seek  to  explain  the  whole  phenomena  of  Christi- 
anity on  natural^  or,  as  they  are  pleased  to  say,  on  rational 
principles.  By  one  party  it  is  claimed  that  the  uneducated 
and  unscientific  disciples  mistook  extraordinary  natural  oc- 
currences for  supernatural  or  miraculous  events.  By  another 
it  is  asserted  that  the  poetic  fervor  of  the  oriental  imagina- 
tion threw  around  the  merely  natural  events  a vesture  of 
myth  and  symbol.  And  by  another  party  it  is  suggested 
that  in  the  enthusiastic  adoration  of  the  early  Christians  for 
the  person  and  character  of  Christ,  they  were  gradually  led 
to  think  and  speak  of  Him  as  more  than  human,  and  finally 
to  worship  Him  as  a God.  The  first  is  the  Naturalistic 
hypothesis  of  Paulus;  the  second  is  the  Mythical  hypothesis 
of  Strauss;  the  last  is  the  Legendary  hypothesis  of  Kenan. 

Common  to  all  these  hypotheses  is  the  one  general  prin- 
ciple of  rejecting  everything  miraculous.  They  all  say,  the 
four  Evangelists  narrate  events  which  are  supernatural;  and 
as  miracles  are  contrary  to  our  experience  of  the  uniformity 
of  nature,  no  human  testimony  can  render  these  statements 
credible,  nor  even  probable,  and  therefore  a rigid  historic 
criticism  must  eliminate  the  miraculous  element. 

The  following  quotations  from  Kenan’s  late  work  on 
“The  Apostles”  are  the  most  forcible  statement  of  this 
principle.  “It  is  an  absolute  rule  of  criticism  to  deny  a 
place  in  history  to  narratives  of  miraculous  circumstances, 
for  it  is  simply  the  dictate  of  observation.  Such  facts  have 
never  been  really  proved.  All  the  pretended  miracles  near 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


243 


enough  to  be  examined  are  referable  to  illusion  or  impos- 
ture. If  a single  miracle  had  ever  been  proved,  we  could 
not  reject  in  a mass  all  those  of  ancient  history;  for  admit- 
ting that  very  many  of  these  last  were  false,  we  might  still 
believe  that  some  of  them  were  true.  But  it  is  not  so.  Dis- 
cussion and  examination  are  fatal  to  miracles.  Are  we  not 
then  authorized  in  believing  that  those  miracles  which  date 
many  centuries  back,  and  regarding  which  there  are  no 
means  of  forming  a contradictory  debate,  are  also  without 
reality,  in  other  words,  that  miracles  only  exist  when 
people  believe  them  ? The  supernatural  is  but  another  word 
for  faith,  A miracle  never  takes  place  before  an  incredu- 
lous and  skeptical  public  that  are  the  most  in  need  of  such 
convincing  proof.  Credulity  on  the  part  of  the  witness  is 
the  essential  condition  of  a miracle.  There  is  not  a solita- 
ry exception  to  the  rule  that  miracles  are  never  produced 
before  those  who  are  able  or  permitted  to  discuss  and  criti- 
cise them.” 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  the  general  prin- 
ciple here  assumed,  that  miracles  are  contrary  to  our  experi- 
ence of  the  uniformity  of  nature,  and  therefore  “it  is  an 
absolute  rule  of  criticism  to  deny  them  a place  in  history,” 
I desire  to  call  j^our  attention  to  one  or  two  minor  points  in 
the  above  quotation  from  Renan. 

“ A miracle,”  says  Renan,  “ never  takes  place  before  an 
incredulous  and  skeptical  public  tliat  are  the  most  in  need  of 

such  convincing  proof There  is  not  a solitary  exception 

to  the  rule  that  miracles  are  never  produced  before  those 
who  are  able  or  permitted  to  discuss  and  criticise  them.” 


244 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


This  remark  is  made  by  Renan  in  regard  to  modern 
pretensions  to  miracles  ; but  it  is  obviously  made  with  the 
design  that  it  should  be  applied,  by  his  readers,  to  the 
miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  This  is  simply  an 
indirect  way  of  saying,  the  miracles  of  Christ  were  not  per- 
formed in  the  presence  of  “ an  incredulous  and  skeptical  pub- 
lic ” who  would  be  careful  to  scrutinize  and  expose  them ; but 
always  in  private,  and  before  an  audience  prepossessed  in  His 
favor,  and  blindly  credulous  as  to  His  pretensions.  Of  course 
it  would  not  be  in  keeping  with  French  politeness  to  say,  in 
round  terms,  that  Christ  was  an  impostor,  but  the  insinuation 
is  clear  enough  to  any  thoughtful  reader.  The  common 
sense  inference  is  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  were  decep- 
tions and  frauds.  In  the  case  of  Lazarus,  Renan  says  right 
out  that  Jesus  lent  himself  an  instrument  to  a “pious 
fraud.”  And  yet  of  this  pious  impostor  Renan  has  the 
strange  inconsistency  to  say:  “ Whatever  may  be  the  sur- 
prises of  the  future,  Jesus  will  never  be  surpassed.  His 
worship  will  grow  young  without  ceasing.  His  legend  will 
call  forth  tears  without  end.  His  sufterings  will  melt  the 
noblest  hearts.  All  ages  will  proclaim  that,  among  the  sons 
of  men,  there  is  none  born  greater  than  Jesus.”  What 
meaning,  we  may  ask,  yea,  what  sincerity,  can  there  be  in 
that  grand  apostrophe  to  Jesus  with  which  he  closes  his 
twenty-fifth  chapter,  if  he  believes  that  the  miracles  were 
impositions:  “Repose  now  in  thy  glory,  noble  founder! 
Thy  work  is  finished  ; thy  divinity  is  established.  A thou- 
sand times  more  beloved  since  thy  death,  than  during  thy 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


245 


passage  here  below,  thou  shalt  become  the  corner-stone  of 
humanity  so  entirely,  that  to  tear  thy  name  from  this  world 
would  be  to  rend  it  to  its  foundations.  Between  thee  and 
God  there  will  no  longer  be  sluj  distinction.”  I think  you 
must  conclude  with  me  that  if  Christ  was  an  impostor, 
Kenan  was  certainly  a hypocrite,  for  no  honest,  upright 
mind  could  possibly  cherish  toward  Jesus  such  sentiments  as 
are  here  uttered  by  Renan,  if  he  believed  that  He  sought 
to  deceive  the  disciples  as  to  the  nature  of  the  apparently 
marvelous  works  He  performed.  < 

But  let  us  look  at  the  facts.  Were  none  of  Christ’s  mir- 
acles performed  in  the  presence  of  an  incredulous  and  skep- 
tical public?  How  was  it  in  the  case  of  the  man  with  the 
withered  hand  who  was  healed  in  the  synagogue  on  the 
Sabbath  day  in  the  presence  of  the  Pharasees?  Were  they 
His  private  friends,  prepossessed  in  His  favor?  Were  they 
notable  to  criticise  the  facts?  They  were  unable  to  deny 
that  a wonderful  work  had  been  wrought.  They  were 
exasperated,  and  went  out  and  held  a council  against  Jesus 
how  they  might  destroy  Him.  What  of  the  woman  who 
had  been  for  eighteen  years  bowed  together,  and  could  in  no 
wise  lift  up  Iierself,  who  was  healed  in  the  synagogue  on  the 
Sabbath  day?  What  of  the  blind  and  the  lame  who  came 
to  Him  in  the  temple  when  crowded  with  worshippers,  and 
He  healed  them;  and  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  seeing  the 
wonderful  things  which  He  did,  were  sore  displeased  ? The 
miracles  of  Christ  were  performed  before  those  who  were 
both  able  and  disposed  “ to  discuss  and  criticise  them.”  Let 


246 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


any  one  read  the  ninth  chapter  of  John’s  Gospel,  which 
records  the  seachin^  scrutiny  instituted  by  the  Jewish  rulers 
respecting  the  healing  of  the  young  man  born  blind, — the 
examination  of  the  young  man,  of  his  parents,  of  his  neigh- 
bors, and  he  must  be  convinced  that  no  modern  court  of 
justice  ever  subjected  a matter  of  fact  to  a severer  scrutiny. 
They  were  not  able  to  shake  the  testimony.  The}"  could  not 
disprove  the  miracle.  All  they  could  do  was  to  say,  “ Give 
God  the  praise;  we  know  that  this  man  is  a sinner!”  But 
Kicodemus  uttered  the  conviction  of  all  honest  and  impar- 
tial minds  when  he  said,  “ K-abbi,  we  know  thou  art  a teach- 
er come  from  God  : for  no  man  can  do  the  works  which  thou 
doest,  except  God  be  with  him ! ” 

The  miracles  ascribed  to  Christ  were  so  numerous,  so 
diversified  in  their  character,  so  open  and  public,  being  per- 
formed in  the  presence  of  enemies  as  well  as  friends,  so 
promptly  and  readily  performed  everywhere  without  any 
previous  preparation  and  notice,  that  it  was  impossible  that 
there  could  be  any- collusion  or  any  deception.  Passing  by 
those  which  were  produced  within  the  sphere  of  inanimate 
nature,  we  need  only  to  consider  those  wrought  upon  the 
persons  of  men.  Palsy,  dropsy,  withered  limbs,  blindness, 
want  of  hearing  and  speech,  leprosy,  confirmed  lunacy, 
were  maladies  as  well  known  in  their  outward  symptoms 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago  as  they  are  to-day.  Persons 
could  not  be  atflicted  with  such  maladies  for  months  and 
years  without  the  fact  becoming  generally  known.  The 
neighbors  must  have  known  all  about  them  as  neighbors  do 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


247 


now,  and  could  readily  attest  to  the  reality  of  their  affliction 
and  the  reality  of  their  cure.  No  man  can  well  pass  him- 
self off  for  deaf  or  dumb  or  blind  in  his  own  neighborhood, 
and  especially  as  congenitally  deaf,  dumb,  or  blind,  without 
detection.  And  when  such  are  suddenly,  instantaneously 
healed  by  a word,  there  can  be  no  room  for  delusion,  and 
no  ground  for  doubt.  Mere  nervous  affections,  as  hypocon- 
driasis,  hysteria,  and  the  like,  might  perhaps  be  relieved 
through  the  power  of  excited  expectation.  But  when  every 
kind  of  disease,  throughout  a whole  region  of  country,  is 
instantaneously  and  perfectly  removed  at  the  word  of  one 
person,  no  ground  is  left  for  denying  the  reality  of  the 
miracies.  Now,  this  is  precise!}^  the  case'  with  the  gospel 
miracles.  “And  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee,  teaching  in 
the  synagogues,  and  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom, 
and  healing  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner  of 
disease  among  the  people.”  “ And  whithersoever  he  entered 
into  villages,  oi*  cities,  or  country,  they  laid  the  sick  in  the 
streets  and  besought  him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were 
but  the  border  of  his  garment  : and  as  many  as  touched 
him  were  made  whole.” 

Now,  if  Eenan  admits  the  essential  authenticity  of 
the  chief  portions  of  the  four  Gospels,  it  is  certainly 
incumbent  upon  him  that  he  should  deal  honestly  with  the 
facts,  and  not  represent  the  miracles  of  Christ  as  having- 
been  performed  in  a corner,  when  the  most  palpable  and 
obvious  fact  is,  they  were  performed  in  the  most  public  man- 
ner,— in  the  streets,  the  synagogue,  the  temple,  in  the  broad 
day,  and  under  the  very  eye  of  the  bitterest  enemies. 


248 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


It  is  furthermore  insinuated  by  Eenan  that  the  belief 
in  the  supernatural  is  an  infirmity  of  weak  and  credulous 
minds.  It  is  a strange  and  somewhat  peculiar  fact,  however, 
that  it  has  been  a common  belief  of  all  ages,  and  of  the 
masses  of  men  in  all  lands.  more,  the  intellectual 

giants  of  all  nations  and  ages  have  believed  in  the  super- 
natural. Socrates  and  Plato,  Augustine  and  Chrysostom, 
Anselm  and  Aquinas,  Bacon  and  Newton,  Leibnitz  and 
Pascal,  Guizot  and  Carpenter,  Rothe  and  Lange,  Sedgwick 
and  Whewell,  and  an  innumerable  host  of  the  first  men  of 
all  departments  of  human  learning  and  natural  science,  are 
arrayed  against  Strauss  and  Renan. 

The  central  point  in  the  position  of  Strauss  and  Renan 
is  that  a supernatural  event,  a miracle,  is  an  a jyriori  impos- 
sibility. It  is  so  contrary  to  all  our  experience  of  the  uni- 
formity of  nature  that  no  evidence  can  render  the  account  of 
a miracle  credible.*  This  is  the  point,  then,  to  which  our 
attention  must  be  especially  directed. 


* The  complacence  with  which  the  skeptical  scientists  speak 
of  their  experience  of  the  “ uniformity  of  nature  ” is  well  rebuked 
by  Carlyle. 

“ ‘But  is  not  a real  Miracle  simply  a violation  of  the  Laws  of 
Nature?’  ask  several.  .Whom  I answer  with  this  new  question, 
What  are  the  Laws  of  Nature?  To  me  perhaps  the  rising  of  one 
from  the  dead  were  no  violation  of  these  Laws,  but  a confirmation; 
were  soipe  far  deeper  Law,  now  first  penetrated  into,  and  by 
Spiritual  Force,  even  as  the  rest  have  all  been,  brought  to  bear  on 

us  with  Material  Force ‘But  is  it  not  the  deepest  Law  of  Nature 

that  she  is  constant?’  cries  an  illuminated  class:  ‘Is  not  the 
Machine  of  the  Universe  fixed  to  move  by  unalterable  rules?’ 

Probably  enough,  good  friends And  now  of  you  too  I make  the 

old  inquiry:  What  those  same  unalterable  rules,  forming  the 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


249 


Xow,  we  shall  advance  and  defend  this  counter  propo- 
sition, namely.  So  far  from  the  universal  belief  of  humanity 
in  the  supernatural  being  unphilosophical  and  irrational,  the 
time  is  fast  approaching,  and  even  now  is,  when  he  who  has 
hitherto  objected  to  the  miraculous  element  in  Christianity, 
will  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  his  philosophy  re- 
quires him  to  believe  both  in  the  possibility  and  actuality  of 
miracles. 

And,  now,  first  of  all,  let  us  come  to  a clear  under- 
standing as  to  the  sense  in  which  we  are  to  use  the  words 
natural  and  supernatural.  What  is  nature?  and  what  is 
the  supernatural  ? In  other  words,  what  is  a natural  occur- 
rence ? and  what  is  a supernatural  or  miraculous  occur- 
rence ? 

complete  Statute-Book  of  nature,  may  possibly  be? Have  any 

deepest  scientific  individuals  dived  down  to  the  foundation  of  the 
Universe,  and  guaged  everything  there?  Did  the  Maker  take 
them  into  His  counsel ; that  they  read  his  ground-plan  of  the  in- 
comprei'-ensible  All ; and  can  say.  This  stands  marked  therein, 
and  nomore  than  this?  Alas!  not  in  anywise!  These  scientific  indi- 
viduals have  been  nowhere  but  where  we  also  are ; have  seen  some 
haiidbreadths  deeper  than  we  see  into  the  Deep,  that  is,  infinite, 

without  bottom  as  without  shore The  course  of  Nature’s  phases, 

on  this  little  faction  of  a Planet,  is  partially  known  to  us:  but 
who  knows  what  deeper  courses  these  depend  on ; what  infinitely 
larger  Cycle  (of  causes)  our  little  Epicycle  revolves  on?  To  the 
Minnow  every  cranny  and  pebble,  and  quality  and  accident,  of  its 
little  native  Creek  may  have  become  familiar : but  does  the  Min- 
now understand  the  Ocean  Tides  and  periodic  Currents,  the  Trade- 
winds,  and  Monsoons  and  Moon’s  Eclipses ; by  all  which  the  con- 
dition of  its  little  Creek  is  regulated,  and  may,  from  time  to  time 
(unmiraculously  enough),  be  quite  overset  and  reversed?  Such  a 
minnow  is  man  ; his  Creek  this  Planet  Earth  ; his  Ocean  the  im- 
measurable All ; his  Monsoons  and  periodic  Currents  the  myste- 
rious Course  of  Providence  through  ^ons  of  ^ons.”  (‘'  Sartor  Re- 
sartus.”) 


250 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


This  is  ii  question  which  must  be  settled  before  we  can 
proceed  one  step  with  the  discussion.  It  is  impossible  to 
argue  with  an  opponent  unless  we  are  agreed  as  to  the  use 
of  the  middle  terms  common  to  both.  The  adversaries  of 
Christianity  assert  that  a miracle  is  a violation  of  the  estab- 
lished order  of  the  universe.  We  si\y  that  it  is  not  a viola- 
tion of  the  established  order  of  the  universe.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  say  that  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  taken 
together,  constitute  the  one  system  of  things.  The  opponents 
of  Christianity  say  that  a miracle  is  a suspension  or  violation 
of  immutable  laws  which  God  ordained  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  We  say  that  a miracle  is  simply  the  mani- 
festation of  a higher  law  not  yet  fully  comprehended  by 
science.  It  is  not  something  against  what  men  call  nature, 
but  something  above  nature,  the  result  of  a power  acting 
upon  nature  in  harmony  with  its  established  laws.  The 
skeptic  defines  a miracle  as  the  effect  of  an  arbitrary  power 
acting  altogether  independent  of  means.  We  say  that 
miracles  are  effected  through  the  instrumentality  of  means, 
but  of  means  which  are  beyond  the  reach  of  human  control, 
for  the  present  at  least.  Unless,  therefore,  we  can  come  to 
some  mutual  understanding  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
we  use,  it  is  manifest  that  no  common  ground  of  reasoning 
can  be  found. 

There  is  equal  uncertainty  and  want  of  agreement  in 
the  use  of  the  word  nature.  Men  talk  fluently  about  the 
‘‘  laws  of  nature,”  “ the  order  of  nature,”  “the  uniformity 
of  nature,”  and  sometimes  of  “eternal  nature,”  without  any 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


251 


precise  find  definite  ideas.  At  one  time  the  term  nature  is 
used  to  denote  the  essential  attributes  of  a thing  which  con- 
stitute it  what  it  is,  as  the  nature  of  light,  heat,  electricity. 
At  another  time  it  is  used  to  denote  tliat  by  which  the  con- 
stitution of  a thing  or  a being  is  determined,  as  nature  has 
done  this  or  that.  In  the  writings  of  some,  nature  compre- 
hends the  sum  of  all  phenomena,  the  universe  of  created 
being.  In  the  language  of  others  it  means  an  “ unknown 
something underlying  all  phenomena,  an  impersonal  power 
or  agent  which  is  the  cause  of  all  things.  Sometimes  it  is 
used  to  designate  material  existence  as  contradistinguished 
from  mind;  at  other  times  as  embracing  both.  One  philoso- 
pher tells  us  that  “nature  is  the  empire  of  mechanical 
necessity,’’  another  says  that  “nature  is  a system  of  things 
subject  to  the  action  of  free  powers,  and  permitting  fortuities 
and  contingencies.”  The  “laws  of  nature”  are  now  spoken 
of  as  rules  imposed  upon  nature  by  an  intelligence,  a reason 
which  is  above  nature;  and  at  another  time  they  are  spoken 
of  as  real  entities,  forces,  and  causes.  Thus,  by  turns,  natui-e 
is  ideal  and  real ; is  lawgiver  and  subject ; is  effect  and  cause; 
is  creature  and  creator.  Can  it  be  possible  that  we  can  ex- 
tricate ourselves  from  the  confusion  and  perplexity  occa- 
sioned by  this  loose  and  equivocal  use  of  language?  We 
cannot  even  think  clearly,  and  we  cannot  reason  accurately, 
until  we  have  learned  to  use  the  terms  natural  and  super- 
natural  in  a strict  and  definite  sense. 

The  German  philosophers,  it  is  [generally  conceded,  are 
more  exact  and  precise  in  the  use  of  language,  and  they  em- 


252 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


ploy  the  term  nature  in  a very  precise  and  uniform  sense. 
In  the  philosophy  of  Germany,  nature  and  its  correla- 
tives, whether  of  Greek  or  Latin  derivation,  are,  in  general^ 
used  to  express  the  world  of  matter  in  contrast  with  the 
world  of  mind.  “ Whatever,”  says  Coleridge,  who  derived 
his  philosophic  views  from  the  Germans,  “ is  comprised 
in  the  chain  and  mechanism  of  cause  and  effect,  of  course 
necessitated,  and  having  its  necessity  in  some  other  thing 
antecedent  or  concurrent — this  is  said  to  be  natural ; and  the 
aggregate  and  system  of  all  such  things  is  nature.”  It  is 
therefore  a contradiction  in  terms  to  include  in  nature  the 
free  will  of  man,  or  the  volition  of  the  Deity,  since,  by  its 
very  definition,  a free  will  is  that  which  originates,  causes, 
determines,  an  act  or  state  or  being.  It  is  true  we  sometimes 
speak  of  the  “nature  of  the  soul,”  “ the  nature  of  God,”  and 
of  a free  volition  as  “natural,”  but  then  we  use  the  term 
“nature’’  in  a tropical  or  accommodated  sense.  Nature, 
then,  let  us  clearly  understand,  is  the  empire  of  mechanical 
necessity.  It  is  the  world  of  matter  with  its  properties  and 
laws,  and  these  laws  simply  express  the  relations  of  resem- 
blance, coexistence,  and  succession.  It  is  the  system  of 
things  in  which  we  have  only  continuity  and  uniformity. 
Nature,  let  me  again  repeat  once  for  all,  is  the  world 
of  material,  sensible  phenomena.  And  the  laws  of  nature 
are  the  uniform  relations  observed  in  the  recurrence  of  ma- 
terial phenomena.  On  this  last  point  I shall  quote  the  words 
of  three  men  who  will  not  be  suspected  of  any  undue  pre- 
possessions in  favor  of  theology.  Herbert  Spencer  says, 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


253 


‘‘Law  is  simply  the  uniformity  of  relations  among  phenom- 
ena.” Montesquieu  has  said,  “Laws  are  the  necessary 
relations  which  spring  from  the  nature  of  things.”  And  the 
Duke  of  Argyle  says,  “Laws  are  simply  an  observed  order 
of  facts.”  Laws,  then,  it  is  admitted,  are  not  real  causes, 
they  are  simply  relations,  and  nature  is  simply  a series  of 
related  effects.  Whenever  we  come  to  inquire  after,  and  deal 
with  real  entities,  powers,  and  causes,  we  pass  beyond  the 
field  of  Physics  and  enter  the  realm  of  Metaphysics.  We 
quit  the  Phenomenal  and  deal  with  the  Metaphenomenal. 

Now,  if  this  be  nature,  where  shall  we  place  mind  ? and 
especially  that  grand  essential  power  of  mind,  or  spirit,  we 
call  will,  OY  personality  ? If  the  testimonj-  of  consciousness 
is  to  be  at  all  relied  upon,  its  deliverances  are  direct,  em- 
phatic, and  conclusive,  the  will  is  free.  The  attempt  on  the 
one  hand  to  deny,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  prove,  that  “I 
am  free,”  is  only  equalled  in  absurdity  by  the  attempt  either 
to  deny  or  to  prove  that  “I  exist.”  I know  that  I am  free 
just  in  the  same  way  that  I know  that  1 exist,  by  direct,  im- 
mediate consciousness.  The  mind  of  man  is  not  material, 
and  it  is  not  governed  by  the  laws  to  which  matter  is  subject. 
It  is  true  we  speak  of  laws  of  mind,  and  of  their  absolute 
necessity  in  i*elation  to  thought.  But  as  Hamilton  justly 
says  in  his  Logic,  “You  must  not  suppose  that  these  laws  and 
that  necessity  are  the  same  in  the  world  of  mind  as  in  the 
world  of  matter.  For  free  intelligences,  a law  is  an  ideal 
necessity  given  in  the  form  of  a precept  which  we  ought  to 
follow,  but  which  we  may  also  violate  if  we  please ; whereas. 


254 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


for  the  existences  which  constitute  the  universe  of  nature,  a 
law  is  only  another  name  for  those  causes  which  operate 
blindly  and  universally  in  producing  certain  inevitable  re- 
sults. law  of  thought^  or  by  logical  necessity^  we  do  not, 
therefore,  mean  a physical  law,  such  as  the  law  of  gravitation, 
but  a general  precept  which  we  are  able  certainly  to  violate, 
but  which  if  we  do  not  obey,  our  whole  process  of  thinking 
is  suicidal,  or  absolutely  null.”  Mind  is  an  active  power,  and 
not  a passive  thing.  It  does  not  stand  in  the  chain  of  cause 
and  effect.  It  has  an  original  spontaneity.  It  is  self-moved  and 
self-determined.  It  has  a creative  power.  It  can  originate  its 
own  states  and  acts.  It  is  essentially  free.  And  if  nature 
be  the  empire  of  mechanical  necessity,  we  cannot  say  of 
such  a free  power  that  it  is  a part  of  nature.  It  is  something 
above  nature.  It  is  capable  of  acting  upon  nature.  It  can 
control,  modify,  and  conquer  nature.  And  there  is  no  other 
word  which  can  express  the  relation  of  Personality  to  nature 
but  the  word  supernatural.  Here,  then,  we  have  found  the 
supernatural, — found  it  not  in  the  domain  of  theology,  but 
in  the  domain  of  philosoph}^ 

In  the  language  of  a sound  philosophy,  nature  will 
stand  for  matter  with  its  phenomena,  properties,  and  laws; 
and  the  supernatural  will  stand  for  spirit  with  its  reason,  its 
energy,  its  freedom,  which  first  ordained  the  laws  of  matter, 
and  still  controls,  collocates,  and  subordinates  these  laws  to 
higher  purposes  and  nobler  ends.  Thus  we  conclude  that 
this  one  world-order  unfolds  itself  in  two  distinct  spheres, 
— an  order  of  nature  in  which  necessity  reigns,  and  an 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


25s 


order  of  moral  life  in  wliich  freedom  reigns.  In  the  first 
tiiere  is  absolute  uniformity  from  age  to  age;  in  the  latter 
there  is  diversity,  contingency,  and  even  the  possibilit}^  of 
disorder  and  sin. 

The  two  spheres  of  tlie  one  realm  of  being  are  clearly 
marked  to  our  experiential  knowledge.  On  comparing  the 
actions  of  men  with  the  events  of  the  material  universe,  and 
even  the  movements  of  instinctive  brutal  forms  of  sense,  we 
can  at  once  recognize  an  intrinsic  and  radical  difference. 
The  movements  of  the  planetary  orbs  are  regular  and  uni- 
form, and  may  be  noted  and  formulated  with  mathematical 
precision.  Terrestrial  changes  occur  in  unbroken  succession, 
the  same  antecedents  being  always  followed  hy  the  same 
results.  The  laws  of  ciystalization  and  chemical  affinity  are 
never  broken  ; chloride  of  sodium  never  has  failed  to  crys- 
talize  in  a cuboid  form,  and  oxygen  and  h3^drogen  always 
combine  in  the  same  definite  proportions.  Vegetable  life 
and  organization  are  ceaselessly  uniform,  there  are  alwaj^s 
the  same  morphological  forms.  Unreasoning  and  instinct- 
ive life  never  leaves  its  sphere.  Tlie  bee  builds  the  same 
hexagonal  cell  she  built  before  the  fiood.  There  is  an  all- 
pervading  order  in  the  physical  world. 

We  now  enter  the  sphere  of  human  activity, — the  moral 
world.  And  here  we  find  that  events  do  not  transpire  under 
a law  of  uniform  sequence.  Human  actions  cannot,  like 
the  movements  of  the  planets,  be  reduced  to  statistical  tables. 
The  history  of  humanity  does  not  give  exact  prevision  of 
the  future,  as  does  the  histoiy  of  physical  science.  Man  has 


'56 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


a pliiriiDotent,  alternative  power.  His  will  is  a pluri-efficient 
cause,  that  is,  it  has  “the  power  or  immunity  to  put  forth 
in  the  same  unchanged  circumstances  either  of  several  voli- 
tions, or  supposing  a given  volition  to  be  in  the  agent’s  con- 
templation, it  is  the  unrestricted  power  of  putting  forth  in 
the  same  circumstances  a ditFerent  volition  instead.”  This 
is  the  realm  of  freedom^  the  sphere  where  virtue,  praise- 
worthiness, nobility,  heroism,  self-sacrifice,  may  have  place; 
and  it  is  also  the  sphere  where  disorder,  lawlessness,  and  sin 
may  occur  even  while  the  demand  of  reason  and  conscience 
is  for  order  and  harmony. 

And,  now,  the  point  to  which  I desire  to  call  your  at- 
tention, and  upon  which  I intend  especially  to  insist  is  that 
to  some  extent  at  least,  yea  to  a large  extent,  the  world  of 
nature  is  subordinated,  subject  to  the  higher  world  of  mind. 
The  world  of  nature  is  a system  of  things  designed  to  be 
governed,  modified,  and  subordinated  by  free  moral  powers. 
Man  can  act,  does  act,  upon  the  chain  of  cause  and  effect  in 
nature.  He  can  control  and  direct  the  forces  of  nature.  He 
can  so  collocate  and  adjust  the  properties  and  forces  of  mat- 
ter as  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  his  intelligence,  and 
bring  about  new  results  which  nature  alone,  by  her  own  in- 
ternal workings,  could  never  have  produced.  Now,  if  these 
propositions  can  be  fully  established,  then  all  objections  to 
the  direct  interposition  of  God  in  a supernatural  way  to  in- 
struct and  redeem  men  are  swept  away.  For  if  the  human, 
the  finite  mind,  can  control  and  modify  natural  laws,  no 
rational  man  can  deny  to  the  Infinite  Mind  the  power  to 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


257 


control  and  modify,  to  restrain  or  accelerate,  the  action  of 
natural  laws,  and  this  is  all  that  we  claim  in  the  miracles  of 
Christ. 

Has,  then,  man  this  power  over  the  physical  world  ? To 
answer  this  question  fully,  and  to  exhibit  all  the  evidence 
upon  which  the  affirmative  rests,  would  be  to  write  a volume 
on  the  power  of  mind  over  nature.  Mr.  Marsh  has  written 
a large  volume  on  one  single  branch  of  this  interesting  sub- 
ject, the  power  of  man  to  modify  the  physical  geography  of 
the  globe.  I refer  to  his  work  on  “ Man  and  Nature.” 
There  are  some  excellent  chapters  on  the  same  theme  in  Sir 
Charles  Lyell’s  Principles  of  Geology.”  Other  works 
might  be  written  on  the  power  of  man  to  control  and  subor- 
dinate the  mechanical,  chemical,  and  electric  forces  of  na- 
ture; on  the  influence  of  mind  upon  the  vegetable  life  of 
the  globe ; and  also  on  the  power  of  man  to  modify  and 
change  the  instincts,  the  habits,  and  even  the  physical  de- 
velopment of  the  animal  creation. 

That  man  has  modified  the  physical  geography  of  the 

globe  cannot  be  doubted.  By  his  free  intelligence  he  has 

altered  the  climatal  condition  of  whole  tracts  of  countiy,  and 

changed  the  phys^gnoniy  of  the  globe.  He  has  materially 

aftected  the  fall  of  rain  by  the  felling  of  timber,  or  by  the 

planting  of  trees,  Thei'e  was  a time  when  in  Lower  Egypt 

rain  rarely  fell  in  any  considerable  quantities.  During  the 

French  occupation  of  Egypt,  about  1798,  it  did  not  rain  for 

sixteen  months,  but  since  the  planting  of  more  than  twenty 

millions  of  trees  by  Mehemed  Ali  arid  his  successors,  there 
R 


25^ 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


now  falls  a good  amount  of  rain,  so  that  ]*eal  showers  are 
now  no  rarity.  Man  has  materially  extended  or  materially 
circumscribed  the  geographical  boundaries  of  plants  and  an- 
imals. He  has  learned  to  control  the  mechanical,  chemical, 
and  electric  forces,  and  he  subordinates  them  to  his  purposes. 
If  he  lifts  a stone  from  the  earth,  and  suspends  it  in  the  air, 
or  locks  it  in  the  bridge  which  spans  the  river,  the  law  of 
gravitation  is  held  in  abeyance,  or  subordinated  to  the 
higher  law  of  intelligent  purpose  and  free  action.  By  the 
collocation  or  readjustment  of  mechanical  forces,  he  over- 
comes the  resistance  of  winds  and  tides,  and  propels  his 
vessel  across  the  furious  deep.  He  seizes  the  lightning  in 
the  clouds  and  guides  it  harmless  to  the  earth,  or  sends  it 
along  the  telegraphic  wire  to  carry  his  thoughts  or  chronicle 
his  acts  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  He  loosens  the  most  in- 
tricate combinations  of  elementary  substances,  and  recom- 
poses them  in  new  forms,  such  as  nature’s  laboratory  never 
produced.  He  solidifies  carbonic  acid  gas,  freezes  water  at 
the  tropics,  and  even  in  red-hot  crucibles  in  the  temperate 
zone.  He  makes  new  chemical  substances,  such^  as  are  not 
found  in  nature,  and  which  are  of  the  utmost  value  in  med- 
icine and  the  arts.  Man  has  also  modifi^  and  changed  the 
development  of  vegetable  life.  He  has  removed  plants  from 
their  original  habitat,  placed  them  in  new  conditions,  and 
they  have  undergone  changes  in  consequence,  so  great  as 
scarcely  to  be  recognized  as  the  same  species.  Single  flowers 
have  been  changed  to  double  flowers,  as  in  the  rose  and  the 
dahlia.  Spines  and  thorns  have  been  obliterated.  Creepers 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


259 


have  been  made  to  stand  erect.  Biennials  have  been  changed 
to  annuals.  The  color  of  flowers  has  been  strangely  altered, 
even  from  red  to  blue.  And  fruits  have  been  astonishingly 
modified  in  size,  in  color,  in  flavor,  by  the  skill  of  man. 
And.  finally,  man  has  marvelousl}’’  changed  the  physical  de- 
velopment and  habits  and  instincts  of  animals.  They  have 
been  altered  in  size,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Arabian  racer 
and  the  London  dray  horse,  which  are  unquestionably  one 
species.  Instincts  have  been  obliterated  or  rendered  dor- 
mant, as  in  the  horse;  and  new  instincts  have  been  devel- 
oped and  become  hereditary,  as  in  the  pointer  and  retriever 
dogs.  The  common  rock  pigeon  has,  by  the  manipulations 
of  man,  been  changed  to  the  tumbler,  the  carrier,  the 
trumpeter,  and  the  fantaiL,  These,  and  numberless  other 
examples  which  might  be  given,  show  the  power  of  man 
over  nature.  On  this  subject  I have  great  pleasure  in  quot- 
ing the  words  of  Mr.  Wallace,  the  real  author  of  the  doctrine 
of  “Natural  Selection.”  “At  length,  however,  there  came 
into  existence  a being  in  whom  that  subtle  force  we  term 
mind^  became  of  greater  importance  than  his  mere  bodily 
structure.  Though  with  a naked  and  unprotected  body,  this 
gave  him  clothing  against  the  varying  inclemencies  of  the 
seasons.  Though  unable  to  compete  with  the  deer  in  swift- 
ness, or  with  the  wild  bull  in  strength,  this  gave  him  weap- 
ons with  which  to  capture  or  overcome  both.  Though  less 
capable  than  most  other  animals  of  living  on  the  herbs  and 
the  fruits  that  unaided  nature  supplies,  this  wonderful 
faculty  taught  him  to  govern  and  direct  nature  to  his  own 


26o 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


benefit,  and  make  her  produce  food  for  him,  when  and 
where  he  pleased.  From  the  moment  when  the  first  skin 
was  used  as  a covering,  when  the  first  rude  spear  was  formed 
to  assist  in  the  chase,  when  fire  was  first  used  to  cook  his 
food,  when  the  fii'st  seed  was  sown  or  shoot  planted,  a grand 
revolution  was  effected  in  nature,  a revolution  which  in  all 
the  previous  ages  of  the  earth’s  history  had  had  no  parallel, 
for  a being  had  arisen  who  was  no  longer  neeessaril}^  sub- 
ject to  change  with  the  changing  universe, — a being  who 
was  in  some  degree  superior  to  nature,  inasmuch  as  he 
knew  how  to  control  and  regulate  her  action,  and 
could  keep  himself  in  harmony  with  her,  not  by  a 
change  in  body,  but  by  an  advance  of  mind...  Man 
is,  indeed,  a being  apart,  since  he  is  not  influenced  by 
the  great  laws  which  irresistibly  modify  all  other  organic 
beings.  Nay  more;  this  victory  which  he  has  gained  for 
himself,  gives  him  a directing  influence  over  other  exist- 
ences. Man  has  not  only  escaped  ‘ natural  selection  ’ him- 
self, but  he  is  actually  able  to  take  away  some  of  that  power 
from  nature  which  before  his  appeni’ance  she  universally 
exercised.  We  can  anticipate  the  time  when  the  earth  will 
produce  only  cultivated  plants  and  domestic  animals;  when 
man’s  selection  shall  have  supplanted  ‘natural  selection  ’ ; 
and  when  the  ocean  will  be  the  only  domain  in  which  that 
power  can  be  exerted,  which  for  countless  cycles  of  ages 
ruled  supreme  over  all  the  earth.”  (‘‘On  Natural  Selec- 
tion,” pp.  324-326.) 

The  system  of  nature,  then,  we  conclude,  is  one  in 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


261 


which  there  are  general  laws  securing  uniformity,  and  yet 
permitting  of  such  collocations  and  dispositions  of  physical 
forces  by  the  agency  of  mind,  as  shall  result  in  individual 
changes,  extraordinary  complications,  and  fortuitous  events. 
There  are  not  only  necessary  events,  but  also  contingent 
events.  IS'ature  is  not  sternly  rigid,  but  flexible,  pliant  to 
the  hand  of  man.  IS'ature  is  certainly  controlled  by  flnite 
mind,  why  can  it  not  be  controlled  by  Inflnite  Mind?  If 
man  can  mould,  control,  modify,  and  subordinate  nature  so 
as  to  accomplish  the  designs  of  his  intelligence,  and  convert 
a destructive  agent,  like  electricity,  into  a beneficial  agent, 
I cannot  see  why  the  Deity,  the  God  who  made  all  and  sus- 
tains all  the  powers  of  nature,  may  not  control  and  subor- 
dinate nature  to  secure  benevolent  purposes,  and  grand 
moral  results.  In  the  light  of  these  facts  the  objections  to 
the  supernatural  in  religion  melt  away. 

The  prevalent  notion  of  the  supernatural  among  skep- 
tical men  is  that  of  a power  acting  independent  of  all  means, 
whereas  the  true  conception  is  that  of  power  exercised 
through  means  that  are  yet  beyond  our  knowledge  and  our 
control.  A miracle,  therefore,  is  not  a real  violation  of 
natural  laws.  God  has  no  need  to  violate  his  own  estab- 
lished order  of  the  universe.  Miracles  are  part  of  the  Di- 
vine order.  “They  are  not  disturbances  and  disorders,  but 
the  high  and  shining  points  of  the  course  of  nature  where 
it  celebrates  its  festivals.  They  are  the  supernatural  beam- 
ing forth  from  the  inmost  life-ground  of  nature.  They  are 
the  clear  flashings  of  the  Creative  Spirit  through  the  veil  of 


262 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


matter,  while  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  it  only  shim- 
mers through  the  natural  event  as  a soft,  mild  radiance.” 
(“Bremen  Lectures,”  pp.  103,  104.)  They  are  the  control 
and  subordination  of  nature  to  the  moral  order  of  the  uni- 
verse, which  is,  in  fact,  the  highest  law  of  the  universe  of 
being,  because  Mind  is  infinitely  superior  to  matter.  Man-s 
acting  upon  nature  proves  him  a pow'er  above  nature.  The 
human  is  higher  and  nobler  than  the  natural.  The  result 
of  man’s  action  is  the  production  of  something  which  nature 
cannot  produce,  for  nature  never  built  a house,  or  made  a 
watch,  or  constructed  a locomotive.  Such  works  are  super 
—above  the  natural.  God’s  action  on  nature  is  much  the 
same  as  man’s  action  on  nature.  The  difference  between 
finite  power  and  infinite  power  constitutes  the  Miracle. 

To  our  mind  it  is  just  as  easy,  and  just  as  rational,  to 
believe  in  a miracle,  say  the  turning  of  water  into  wine,  as 
to  believe  that  water  can  be  frozen  in  a red-hot  crucible. 
Finite  knowledge  achieves  the  one,  infinite  knowledge 
achieved  the  other. 

I^'ow,  that  God  has  thus  acted  upon  nature,  acted  out  of 
the  regular  succession  of  causes  and  effects  established  in 
nature,  may  be  easily  shown. 

Creation  was  the  first  miracle.  That  first  beginning  of 
time,  that  first  production  of  the  primordial  element  or  ele- 
ments out  of  which  all  things  were  formed,  was  a miracle, 
for  before  time  existed  there  was  no  succession,  and  there- 
fore no  order  of  nature.  The  testimony  of  the  rocks  is  full 
of  such  miracles.  There  was  a time  when  our  earth  was 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


263 


once  a molten  mass  of  liquid  rock,  when  there  was  not  a 
spore,  a cellule,  an  atom  of  life,  within  its  dark  domain, 
when  all  nature  from  its  centre  to  its  circumference  was  a 
creation  of  dead,  inorganic  matter,  and  in  the  operation  of 
mere  natural  law,  must  have  so  remained  forever.  The 
geologist  can  take  up  in  his  lingers  the  fossil  remains  of  the 
lirst  form  of  life  which  was  brought  into  existence  on  our 
planet.  The  act  by  which  the  first  organized  life  was 
brought  into  being  was  above  nature,  a supernatural  act,  a 
miracle.  Even  Darwin  admits  that  “life  was  first  breathed 
into  the  first  form  or  forms  by  the  Creator.”  Was  not  that 
a supernatural  act,  a miracle;  dead  matter  became  alive. 
Where  is  the  difference  between  that  act,  and  the  bringing 
of  a dead  Lazarus  to  life  ? Life  is  not  the  result  of  physical 
and  chemical  forces,  it  is  something  which  transcends  chem- 
istry, and  has  its  origin  directly  in  Creative  Power.  So  says 
the  Bible.  So  says  the  best  and  most  recent  science.  M. 
Claud  Bernard,  Pasteur,  Quatrefages,  Dr.  Beale,  Professor 
Huxley,  Murphy,  are  all  agreed  on  this  point.  Dr.  Frank- 
land’s  late  experiments  (recorded  in  Nature^  vol.  iii.  No.  64) 
are  decisive.  Spontaneous  generation  cannot  be  proved  to 
be  an  ordinary  nature-process.  The  initiation  of  life  in  the 
universe  is  an  epochal  event.  It  is  the  extraordinary  course 
of  nature;  it  is  a miracle  quite  as  great  as  revelation  sup- 
poses. 

The  appearance  of  rational  intelligence  on  the  earth  is 
equally  a miracle.  It  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  habit, 
variation,  and  natural  selection.  This  has  been  abundantly 


264 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


proved  by  Murphy  in  “ Habit  and  Intelligence,”  and  by 
Mivart  “On  the  Origin  of  Species.”  “We  know,  from  the 
testimony  of  science,  that  God  has  interposed  in  the  natural 
history  of  our  earth  to  place  man  upon  it^  This  was,  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  the  word,  a supernatural  interposition  of 
creative  power,  a miracle.  The  placing  of  man  upon  the 
earth,  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  operation  of  natural 
law,  in  any  way  contrary  to  our  experience,  was  a tremen- 
dous miracle.  God  interposed  supernaturally  to  place  man 
upon  the  earth.  How,  then,  can  there  be  any  violation  of 
analogy  in  His  interposing  supernaturally,  in  the  way  of 
Christianity,  to  organize  a divine  societ}^,  and  recreate  man 
to  purity?”  (“Plurality  of  Worlds.”) 

What,  then,  is  the  Biblical  conception  of  nature?  It  is 
the  living  vesture  with  which  God  clothes  himself  and  be- 
comes manifested  to  man.  He  continually  upholds  all 
things  by  His  power.  He  is  the  life  of  nature  and  He  is  the 
law  of  nature.  The  uniformities  of  nature  are  the  result 
and  the  proof  of  His  perfection  and  immutability.  None 
of  the  forces  or  energies  of  nature  have  ail  existence  inde- 
pendent of  God,  all  is  pervaded,  upheld,  animated,  directed 
by  Him  who  made  the  whole.  From  that  fullness  of  power 
and  life  which  flows  from  Him  through  the  world  as  its 
innerlife.  He  can,  by  a special  volition,  originate  something 
new,  which  is  a manifested  miracle,  just  as  His  ordinary 
working  is  a concealed  miracle. 

I hold,  however,  that  if  you  explained  all  the  miracles 
away,  you  have  not  explained  Christianity  away.  As  Car- 


UNIVERSITY  LECTURES. 


265 


13^6  has  said,  ‘‘The  Christian  religion  once  here  cannot  pass 
away.”  Religion  and  philosophy  are  the  two  great  facts  of 
liiunan  thought,  facts  real  and  iincontestable.  “Christian- 
ity,” says  Cousin,  “is  the  last  religion  which  has  appeared 
upon  the  earth  ; it  is  the  end  of  the  religious  movements  of 
the  world,  and  with  it  all  religion  is  consummated.  In  fact, 
Christianity,  so  little  studied,  so  little  understood,  is  nothing 
less  than  the  summing  up  and. crown  of  the  two  great  relig- 
ious sj^stems  which  reigned  b}"  turn  in  the  East  and  in 
Greece.”  That  is,  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  development 
of  human  history  as  planned  by'  God. 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 
FEB  4 1933 
UNIVERSITY  Of  ILLINOI 


/ o-r:> 


